Avgas availability

[Matt Whiting]

Anyone seeing any avgas shortages? I just learned that a local airport
(7N1) is out of gas. The FBO has a 10,000 gallon tank and ordered fuel
back in February and still hasn't received it. He ran out yesterday...

Matt

[kontiki]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>
> Anyone seeing any avgas shortages? I just learned that a local airport
> (7N1) is out of gas. The FBO has a 10,000 gallon tank and ordered fuel
> back in February and still hasn't received it. He ran out yesterday...
>
> Matt

No, but I've been hearing reports that supply is very tight. The reasons
of course are this country's complete failure to improve infastructure
or explore for more supply of an important commodity. Thus supply is
very short, demand is up and so are prices. Its economics 101.

When supply is tight, fule suppliers with do what they call
"allocating". Customers that are not branded (and just shop
around for the lowest prices when they need fuel) can be left
without fuel in favore of allocated customers. It happened
for a while when Katrina hit.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> Anyone seeing any avgas shortages? I just learned that a local airport
>> (7N1) is out of gas. The FBO has a 10,000 gallon tank and ordered fuel
>> back in February and still hasn't received it. He ran out yesterday...
>>
>> Matt
>
> No, but I've been hearing reports that supply is very tight. The reasons
> of course are this country's complete failure to improve infastructure
> or explore for more supply of an important commodity.

Oh, they know where it is (Continental shelf, ANWR, etc.), so exploration is
rather worthless.

>Thus supply is
> very short, demand is up and so are prices. Its economics 101.

Right now, two of the biggest refineries are shut down for maintenance, and
one had to be shut down for unexpected repairs. Petro industry people warned
about this for years and Katrina wasn't the wakeup call that cementheads
needed.

As most every one knows, we've not built a refinery in the US in 32 years,
and during that time

>
> When supply is tight, fule suppliers with do what they call
> "allocating". Customers that are not branded (and just shop
> around for the lowest prices when they need fuel) can be left
> without fuel in favore of allocated customers. It happened
> for a while when Katrina hit.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=263601990515635

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

In 2006, the blending of ethanol into gasoline reached a new high of more
than five billion gallons and production if new clean-burning ultra
low-sulfur diesel fuel topped a record 2.6 million barrels a day at the end
of last year.

The fact is that U.S. refining capacity has been growing at about 1% a year
for the past decade - the equivalent of adding a mid-size refinery every
year. Since 1996, U.S. refiners have expanded capacity by more than 2
million barrels a day This is a remarkable achievement in the face of
environmental mandates setting new ethanol usage and low-sulfur
requirements.

But the last major refinery built in the U.S. was in Garyville, La., in 1976
and the ones we have are getting older, no matter how well they're
maintained. Fifty out of 194 refineries were shut down from 1990 to 2004.
There is no slack in the system. Like the cars they fuel, periodic
maintenance us required.

/end

BTW, regarding that 2 million bbls/day of expanded capacity (we use, what,
10 million a day?), two studies several years ago (late 70's early 80s')
calculated we could save over 10% annually on gas usage by merely
coordinating traffic signals better. Of course, that would mean localities
would possibly have to give up $$billions in reveune from fines. It also
means that those self-same localities would have to get off their asses and
do the work of setting them correctly. Fat chance: the built-in congestion
is now FAR worse, with traffic cams and the like. NO, it's so much easier to
pontificate "Public Service" BS like "share a ride", "ride your bike"...
It's nice to have the advertising budget, too.


--
Matt Barrow (14 years in the road design/building business)
Performace Homes, LLC.
Colorado Springs, CO

[ktbr]

Excellent and accurate information. However it is worthless
if not widely disseminated or understood, much less acted
upon by so called "leaders" (generous use of term).

[Ross]

Matt Barrow wrote:

>
> BTW, regarding that 2 million bbls/day of expanded capacity (we use, what,
> 10 million a day?), two studies several years ago (late 70's early 80s')
> calculated we could save over 10% annually on gas usage by merely
> coordinating traffic signals better. Of course, that would mean localities
> would possibly have to give up $$billions in reveune from fines. It also
> means that those self-same localities would have to get off their asses and
> do the work of setting them correctly. Fat chance: the built-in congestion
> is now FAR worse, with traffic cams and the like. NO, it's so much easier to
> pontificate "Public Service" BS like "share a ride", "ride your bike"...
> It's nice to have the advertising budget, too.
>
>

I am on a commuter bus for 35 miles one way. Very convienent. My company
pays one half the cost. With gas at $2.97 this week, that is very nice.
--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 16, 6:18 am, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
> "kontiki" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> >> Anyone seeing any avgas shortages? I just learned that a local airport
> >> (7N1) is out of gas. The FBO has a 10,000 gallon tank and ordered fuel
> >> back in February and still hasn't received it. He ran out yesterday...
>
> >> Matt
>
> > No, but I've been hearing reports that supply is very tight. The reasons
> > of course are this country's complete failure to improve infastructure
> > or explore for more supply of an important commodity.
>
> Oh, they know where it is (Continental shelf, ANWR, etc.), so exploration is
> rather worthless.
>
> >Thus supply is
> > very short, demand is up and so are prices. Its economics 101.
>
> Right now, two of the biggest refineries are shut down for maintenance, and
> one had to be shut down for unexpected repairs. Petro industry people warned
> about this for years and Katrina wasn't the wakeup call that cementheads
> needed.
>
> As most every one knows, we've not built a refinery in the US in 32 years,
> and during that time
>
>
>
> > When supply is tight, fule suppliers with do what they call
> > "allocating". Customers that are not branded (and just shop
> > around for the lowest prices when they need fuel) can be left
> > without fuel in favore of allocated customers. It happened
> > for a while when Katrina hit.
>
> http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=263601990515635
>
> /quote
> Our refineries are doing more than ever, but their numbers are dwindling and
> no new ones are being built. The reason is not greed, but cost and
> regulations. From 1994 to 2003, the refining industry spent $47.4 billion,
> not to build new refineries, but to bring existing ones into compliance with
> ever new and stringent environmental rules. That's where those allegedly
> excessive profits go.
>
> In 2006, the blending of ethanol into gasoline reached a new high of more
> than five billion gallons and production if new clean-burning ultra
> low-sulfur diesel fuel topped a record 2.6 million barrels a day at the end
> of last year.
>
> The fact is that U.S. refining capacity has been growing at about 1% a year
> for the past decade - the equivalent of adding a mid-size refinery every
> year. Since 1996, U.S. refiners have expanded capacity by more than 2
> million barrels a day This is a remarkable achievement in the face of
> environmental mandates setting new ethanol usage and low-sulfur
> requirements.
>
> But the last major refinery built in the U.S. was in Garyville, La., in 1976
> and the ones we have are getting older, no matter how well they're
> maintained. Fifty out of 194 refineries were shut down from 1990 to 2004.
> There is no slack in the system. Like the cars they fuel, periodic
> maintenance us required.
>
> /end
>
> BTW, regarding that 2 million bbls/day of expanded capacity (we use, what,
> 10 million a day?), two studies several years ago (late 70's early 80s')
> calculated we could save over 10% annually on gas usage by merely
> coordinating traffic signals better. Of course, that would mean localities
> would possibly have to give up $$billions in reveune from fines. It also
> means that those self-same localities would have to get off their asses and
> do the work of setting them correctly. Fat chance: the built-in congestion
> is now FAR worse, with traffic cams and the like. NO, it's so much easier to
> pontificate "Public Service" BS like "share a ride", "ride your bike"...
> It's nice to have the advertising budget, too.
>
> --
> Matt Barrow (14 years in the road design/building business)
> Performace Homes, LLC.
> Colorado Springs, CO

All very true. However, lack of capacity does not result in shortages
as the OP suggests. In a free market lack of capacity or supply
results in higher prices. Now, if the democrats try to cap prices or
increase the tax on gas the restricted capacity would result in
shortages.

-Robert

[John Galban]

On May 16, 6:18 am, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
NO, it's so much easier to
> pontificate "Public Service" BS like "share a ride", "ride your bike"...
> It's nice to have the advertising budget, too.
>

Well, actually doing those things makes a significant difference
too. Those of us who keep track of oil production and consumption
figures know that people will cut consumption drastically if the price
hurts enough. This was demonstrated quite handily after the Katrina
related spike two years ago. People started riding busses, sharing
rides and using more fuel efficient transportation. Consumption
numbers dropped around 10% and the street price of a gallon of gas
dipped below $2 shortly thereafter.

Of course, with the price below $2/gal, people went right back to
their old ways and consumption (and prices) went right back up. It's
quite evident that we can cut back sigificantly when we have to. We
just don't want to.

BTW - If gas prices get you down, invest in the oil sector. It'll
make you feel better.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "RG" == Robert M Gary > writes:
RG> In a free market lack of
RG> capacity or supply results in higher prices. Now, if the
RG> democrats try to cap prices or increase the tax on gas the
RG> restricted capacity would result in shortages.

An increased tax would result in a higher retail price...how would
that create a shortage again? Wouldn't it tend to reduce consumption
thereby alleviating the shortage?

--
"Better to be a geek than an idiot."

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

It depends entirely on where the tax is applicable. If the tax is on income
and revenue (windfall profits revisited?) then it might curtail production
because of less capital to reinvest and less incentive to run at capacity.
If the tax is an excise and attached at the pump, then the industry
producers will see little impact to their revenue, but you and I will pick
up the load. That might result in a reduced demand for fuel, which might
increase availability but that cause and effect often alludes the
population.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

[Matt Whiting]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> All very true. However, lack of capacity does not result in shortages
> as the OP suggests. In a free market lack of capacity or supply
> results in higher prices. Now, if the democrats try to cap prices or
> increase the tax on gas the restricted capacity would result in
> shortages.

It absolutely does result in shortages. Capacity can't be added in zero
time even if it is economically viable to do so. And prices have to
stay high enough, long enough to attract new investment. In the mean
time, shortages will occur ever more frequently even as the prices rise
dramatically.


Matt

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Ross" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>
>> BTW, regarding that 2 million bbls/day of expanded capacity (we use,
>> what, 10 million a day?), two studies several years ago (late 70's early
>> 80s') calculated we could save over 10% annually on gas usage by merely
>> coordinating traffic signals better. Of course, that would mean
>> localities would possibly have to give up $$billions in reveune from
>> fines. It also means that those self-same localities would have to get
>> off their asses and do the work of setting them correctly. Fat chance:
>> the built-in congestion is now FAR worse, with traffic cams and the like.
>> NO, it's so much easier to pontificate "Public Service" BS like "share
>> a ride", "ride your bike"... It's nice to have the advertising budget,
>> too.
>>
>>
>
> I am on a commuter bus for 35 miles one way. Very convienent. My company
> pays one half the cost. With gas at $2.97 this week, that is very nice.

How nice.

If we all moved to bigger cities, we could all take commuter buses.

Recall the point about the exception disproving the rule.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 16, 6:18 am, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
>> "kontiki" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>> >> Anyone seeing any avgas shortages? I just learned that a local
>> >> airport
>> >> (7N1) is out of gas. The FBO has a 10,000 gallon tank and ordered
>> >> fuel
>> >> back in February and still hasn't received it. He ran out
>> >> yesterday...
>>
>> >> Matt
>>
>> > No, but I've been hearing reports that supply is very tight. The
>> > reasons
>> > of course are this country's complete failure to improve infastructure
>> > or explore for more supply of an important commodity.
>>
>> Oh, they know where it is (Continental shelf, ANWR, etc.), so exploration
>> is
>> rather worthless.
>>
>> >Thus supply is
>> > very short, demand is up and so are prices. Its economics 101.
>>
>> Right now, two of the biggest refineries are shut down for maintenance,
>> and
>> one had to be shut down for unexpected repairs. Petro industry people
>> warned
>> about this for years and Katrina wasn't the wakeup call that cementheads
>> needed.
>>
>> As most every one knows, we've not built a refinery in the US in 32
>> years,
>> and during that time
>>
>>
>>
>> > When supply is tight, fule suppliers with do what they call
>> > "allocating". Customers that are not branded (and just shop
>> > around for the lowest prices when they need fuel) can be left
>> > without fuel in favore of allocated customers. It happened
>> > for a while when Katrina hit.
>>
>> http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=263601990515635
>>
>> /quote
>> Our refineries are doing more than ever, but their numbers are dwindling
>> and
>> no new ones are being built. The reason is not greed, but cost and
>> regulations. From 1994 to 2003, the refining industry spent $47.4
>> billion,
>> not to build new refineries, but to bring existing ones into compliance
>> with
>> ever new and stringent environmental rules. That's where those allegedly
>> excessive profits go.
>>
>> In 2006, the blending of ethanol into gasoline reached a new high of more
>> than five billion gallons and production if new clean-burning ultra
>> low-sulfur diesel fuel topped a record 2.6 million barrels a day at the
>> end
>> of last year.
>>
>> The fact is that U.S. refining capacity has been growing at about 1% a
>> year
>> for the past decade - the equivalent of adding a mid-size refinery every
>> year. Since 1996, U.S. refiners have expanded capacity by more than 2
>> million barrels a day This is a remarkable achievement in the face of
>> environmental mandates setting new ethanol usage and low-sulfur
>> requirements.
>>
>> But the last major refinery built in the U.S. was in Garyville, La., in
>> 1976
>> and the ones we have are getting older, no matter how well they're
>> maintained. Fifty out of 194 refineries were shut down from 1990 to 2004.
>> There is no slack in the system. Like the cars they fuel, periodic
>> maintenance us required.
>>
>> /end
>>
>> BTW, regarding that 2 million bbls/day of expanded capacity (we use,
>> what,
>> 10 million a day?), two studies several years ago (late 70's early 80s')
>> calculated we could save over 10% annually on gas usage by merely
>> coordinating traffic signals better. Of course, that would mean
>> localities
>> would possibly have to give up $$billions in reveune from fines. It also
>> means that those self-same localities would have to get off their asses
>> and
>> do the work of setting them correctly. Fat chance: the built-in
>> congestion
>> is now FAR worse, with traffic cams and the like. NO, it's so much easier
>> to
>> pontificate "Public Service" BS like "share a ride", "ride your
>> bike"...
>> It's nice to have the advertising budget, too.
>>
>> --
>> Matt Barrow (14 years in the road design/building business)
>> Performace Homes, LLC.
>> Colorado Springs, CO
>
> All very true. However, lack of capacity does not result in shortages
> as the OP suggests.

Really? Shortages (capacity) do not cause other shortages (output)? Great
logic...mind 'splaining that one?

>In a free market lack of capacity or supply
> results in higher prices.

Isn't that what the OP stated?

>Now, if the democrats try to cap prices or
> increase the tax on gas the restricted capacity would result in
> shortages.

Nothin' gets past you! :~)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
...
> It depends entirely on where the tax is applicable. If the tax is on
> income and revenue (windfall profits revisited?) then it might curtail
> production because of less capital to reinvest and less incentive to run
> at capacity. If the tax is an excise and attached at the pump, then the
> industry producers will see little impact to their revenue, but you and I
> will pick up the load. That might result in a reduced demand for fuel,
> which might increase availability but that cause and effect often alludes
> the population.
>

??? Tax??

(Talking to yourself??)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"John Galban" > wrote in message
s.com...
> On May 16, 6:18 am, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
> NO, it's so much easier to
>> pontificate "Public Service" BS like "share a ride", "ride your
>> bike"...
>> It's nice to have the advertising budget, too.
>>
>
> Well, actually doing those things makes a significant difference
> too.

How much? During the late 70's, it's been estimated that conservation saved
about 3-5% and the economic slowdown did the rest.

> Those of us who keep track of oil production and consumption
> figures know that people will cut consumption drastically if the price
> hurts enough.

Really? What an insight! You have inside information on the law of supply
and demand? :~)


> This was demonstrated quite handily after the Katrina
> related spike two years ago. People started riding busses, sharing
> rides and using more fuel efficient transportation. Consumption
> numbers dropped around 10% and the street price of a gallon of gas
> dipped below $2 shortly thereafter.

And the ecomomic slowdown did...what, to the numbers? BTW, I'm certainly not
saying conservation isn't a good idea. But, like alternative sources of
power, they're insignificant. And yes, gunning a 3/4 ton pickup truck away
from a green light is STOOPID.

>
> Of course, with the price below $2/gal, people went right back to
> their old ways and consumption (and prices) went right back up.

Prices went down when the production facilities came back online; they went
back up only after the world market price went up and a couple of our
way-too-few facilities had to be brought down for service.

Geez... UpChuck Schumer and his crackheaded cohorts must love people that
came come up with such fluff.

> It's
> quite evident that we can cut back sigificantly when we have to. We
> just don't want to.
>
> BTW - If gas prices get you down, invest in the oil sector. It'll
> make you feel better.

I'd rather get FAT ASSED GOVERNMENT TYPES TO QUIT SITTING ON THEIR BRAINS.
I'd also want them to quit f*ck*ng with traffic light to garner revenue and
also to quit KILLING PEOPLE in doing so.

Maybe some people would rather just kiss the government peepee.

--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Colorado Springs, CO

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Nope - responding to Bob Fry's post immediately preceding mine.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Carter" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It depends entirely on where the tax is applicable. If the tax is on
>> income and revenue (windfall profits revisited?) then it might curtail
>> production because of less capital to reinvest and less incentive to run
>> at capacity. If the tax is an excise and attached at the pump, then the
>> industry producers will see little impact to their revenue, but you and I
>> will pick up the load. That might result in a reduced demand for fuel,
>> which might increase availability but that cause and effect often alludes
>> the population.
>>
>
> ??? Tax??
>
> (Talking to yourself??)
>
>
>

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Anyone seeing any avgas shortages? I just learned that a local airport
>>> (7N1) is out of gas. The FBO has a 10,000 gallon tank and ordered fuel
>>> back in February and still hasn't received it. He ran out yesterday...
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>> No, but I've been hearing reports that supply is very tight. The reasons
>> of course are this country's complete failure to improve infastructure
>> or explore for more supply of an important commodity.
>
>Oh, they know where it is (Continental shelf, ANWR, etc.), so exploration is
>rather worthless.

Do you know what the know proven reserves in ANWR are?
ZERO barrels. None, nada, zip.

And consider this scenario... ANWR is east of Prudhoe
Bay while the National Petroleum Reserve -- Alaska
(NPR-A) is to the west, and both are estimated by the
USGS to have about the same amount of oil, in about the
same type and size of reservoirs. Hmmm... what
significance does that have, you say?

First, there has been exactly 1 exploratory well drilled
in ANWR, in 1985. The results are secret.

Second, exploration wells have been being drilled in
NPR-A since the late 1940's. There are several known
reserves, none of which are large enough to warrant
production. A typical example is that a hole was
drilled about 50 miles southeast of Barrow this spring,
and it produced oil. It was not flow tested adequately,
but they estimate 300-400 million barrels. It is 150
miles or so to the nearest pipeline, so it will not be
produced.

Experience in NPR-A suggests that it might take 40-50
years of exploration in ANWR before even a single drop
of oil would be pumped out for sale.

>>Thus supply is
>> very short, demand is up and so are prices. Its economics 101.
>
>Right now, two of the biggest refineries are shut down for maintenance, and
>one had to be shut down for unexpected repairs. Petro industry people warned
>about this for years and Katrina wasn't the wakeup call that cementheads
>needed.
>
>As most every one knows, we've not built a refinery in the US in 32 years,
>and during that time

A totally bogus statement. The industry has been
rebuilding refineries as needed. Every time they rebuild
one, and increase its output, they *close* others....

Why would anyone build a new refinery??? All it would do is
add *excess* capacity. They wouldn't be able to sell the product
without lowering the price of products from other refineries.

Oil companies are not stupid!

>http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=263601990515635
>
>/quote
>Our refineries are doing more than ever, but their numbers are dwindling and
>no new ones are being built. The reason is not greed, but cost and
>regulations. From 1994 to 2003, the refining industry spent $47.4 billion,
>not to build new refineries, but to bring existing ones into compliance with
>ever new and stringent environmental rules. That's where those allegedly
>excessive profits go.

Money spent on increasing the size and rebuilding
refineries is *not* profit.

That is also not some huge expense "to bring existing
ones into compliance". It is done to upgrade to more
efficient equipment, which is more profitable. The
total capacity is adjusted to *eliminate* unused
capacity! In other words, they do not have any
intention of building excess capacity which would cut
into profits. Oil companies are not stupid!

The fine line between just enough capacity and too much
or too little is drawn by the oil companies, and they
most certainly are not inclined to make sure there is
enough excess capacity to prevent price increases!

Claiming that no refineries have been built is
disingenuous, and simply insignificant. A great deal of
new capacity has been built, and there has been a huge
amount of capacity purposely shut down to maintain
higher prices.

>The fact is that U.S. refining capacity has been growing at about 1% a year
>for the past decade - the equivalent of adding a mid-size refinery every
>year. Since 1996, U.S. refiners have expanded capacity by more than 2
>million barrels a day This is a remarkable achievement in the face of
>environmental mandates setting new ethanol usage and low-sulfur
>requirements.

It is remarkably naive to believe that last sentence is
appropriate.

>But the last major refinery built in the U.S. was in Garyville, La., in 1976
>and the ones we have are getting older, no matter how well they're
>maintained.

That is obviously not true, given the above statements
about rebuilding refineries.

>Fifty out of 194 refineries were shut down from 1990 to 2004.
>There is no slack in the system. Like the cars they fuel, periodic
>maintenance us required.

And obviously oil companies *are*, and have been for
decades, fine tuning the refinery industry for maximum
profit.

>/end



--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 16, 4:08 pm, Bob Fry > wrote:
> >>>>> "RG" == Robert M Gary > writes:
>
> RG> In a free market lack of
> RG> capacity or supply results in higher prices. Now, if the
> RG> democrats try to cap prices or increase the tax on gas the
> RG> restricted capacity would result in shortages.
>
> An increased tax would result in a higher retail price...how would
> that create a shortage again? Wouldn't it tend to reduce consumption
> thereby alleviating the shortage?

If the tax is on marginal profit (i.e. "wind fall tax") the fuel
companies may not be able to produce more than a fix amount of gas
because the cost to provide it (including the new tax) may be not
allow the market to meet the price. I.e. if supplier and demander
can't agree on any price there is no supply.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 16, 5:52 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > All very true. However, lack of capacity does not result in shortages
> > as the OP suggests. In a free market lack of capacity or supply
> > results in higher prices. Now, if the democrats try to cap prices or
> > increase the tax on gas the restricted capacity would result in
> > shortages.
>
> It absolutely does result in shortages. Capacity can't be added in zero
> time even if it is economically viable to do so. And prices have to
> stay high enough, long enough to attract new investment. In the mean
> time, shortages will occur ever more frequently even as the prices rise
> dramatically.
>
> Matt

I'm not sure how it is where you live but here gas prices can chance
twice a day. Prices can change very quickly to reflect supply.

-robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 16, 8:05 pm, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 16, 6:18 am, "Matt Barrow" >
> > wrote:
> >> "kontiki" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> >> >> Anyone seeing any avgas shortages? I just learned that a local
> >> >> airport
> >> >> (7N1) is out of gas. The FBO has a 10,000 gallon tank and ordered
> >> >> fuel
> >> >> back in February and still hasn't received it. He ran out
> >> >> yesterday...
>
> >> >> Matt
>
> >> > No, but I've been hearing reports that supply is very tight. The
> >> > reasons
> >> > of course are this country's complete failure to improve infastructure
> >> > or explore for more supply of an important commodity.
>
> >> Oh, they know where it is (Continental shelf, ANWR, etc.), so exploration
> >> is
> >> rather worthless.
>
> >> >Thus supply is
> >> > very short, demand is up and so are prices. Its economics 101.
>
> >> Right now, two of the biggest refineries are shut down for maintenance,
> >> and
> >> one had to be shut down for unexpected repairs. Petro industry people
> >> warned
> >> about this for years and Katrina wasn't the wakeup call that cementheads
> >> needed.
>
> >> As most every one knows, we've not built a refinery in the US in 32
> >> years,
> >> and during that time
>
> >> > When supply is tight, fule suppliers with do what they call
> >> > "allocating". Customers that are not branded (and just shop
> >> > around for the lowest prices when they need fuel) can be left
> >> > without fuel in favore of allocated customers. It happened
> >> > for a while when Katrina hit.
>
> >>http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=263601990515635
>
> >> /quote
> >> Our refineries are doing more than ever, but their numbers are dwindling
> >> and
> >> no new ones are being built. The reason is not greed, but cost and
> >> regulations. From 1994 to 2003, the refining industry spent $47.4
> >> billion,
> >> not to build new refineries, but to bring existing ones into compliance
> >> with
> >> ever new and stringent environmental rules. That's where those allegedly
> >> excessive profits go.
>
> >> In 2006, the blending of ethanol into gasoline reached a new high of more
> >> than five billion gallons and production if new clean-burning ultra
> >> low-sulfur diesel fuel topped a record 2.6 million barrels a day at the
> >> end
> >> of last year.
>
> >> The fact is that U.S. refining capacity has been growing at about 1% a
> >> year
> >> for the past decade - the equivalent of adding a mid-size refinery every
> >> year. Since 1996, U.S. refiners have expanded capacity by more than 2
> >> million barrels a day This is a remarkable achievement in the face of
> >> environmental mandates setting new ethanol usage and low-sulfur
> >> requirements.
>
> >> But the last major refinery built in the U.S. was in Garyville, La., in
> >> 1976
> >> and the ones we have are getting older, no matter how well they're
> >> maintained. Fifty out of 194 refineries were shut down from 1990 to 2004.
> >> There is no slack in the system. Like the cars they fuel, periodic
> >> maintenance us required.
>
> >> /end
>
> >> BTW, regarding that 2 million bbls/day of expanded capacity (we use,
> >> what,
> >> 10 million a day?), two studies several years ago (late 70's early 80s')
> >> calculated we could save over 10% annually on gas usage by merely
> >> coordinating traffic signals better. Of course, that would mean
> >> localities
> >> would possibly have to give up $$billions in reveune from fines. It also
> >> means that those self-same localities would have to get off their asses
> >> and
> >> do the work of setting them correctly. Fat chance: the built-in
> >> congestion
> >> is now FAR worse, with traffic cams and the like. NO, it's so much easier
> >> to
> >> pontificate "Public Service" BS like "share a ride", "ride your
> >> bike"...
> >> It's nice to have the advertising budget, too.
>
> >> --
> >> Matt Barrow (14 years in the road design/building business)
> >> Performace Homes, LLC.
> >> Colorado Springs, CO
>
> > All very true. However, lack of capacity does not result in shortages
> > as the OP suggests.
>
> Really? Shortages (capacity) do not cause other shortages (output)? Great
> logic...mind 'splaining that one?

I'm not sure teaching an entire economics class is possible within
this forum but the short answer is, if the gov't stays out of it
prices will quickly adjust to adjust to output levels. In the stock
market supply of available stock changes by the second, as do
commondities, exchange rates, etc, in all these cases prices adjust
such that everyone can buy a share of stock, the only question is the
price. In retail fuel, prices often change more than once per day.

-Robert, MBA

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 16, 4:08 pm, John Galban > wrote:
> On May 16, 6:18 am, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
> NO, it's so much easier to
>
> > pontificate "Public Service" BS like "share a ride", "ride your bike"...
> > It's nice to have the advertising budget, too.
>
> Well, actually doing those things makes a significant difference
> too. Those of us who keep track of oil production and consumption
> figures know that people will cut consumption drastically if the price
> hurts enough. This was demonstrated quite handily after the Katrina
> related spike two years ago. People started riding busses, sharing
> rides and using more fuel efficient transportation. Consumption
> numbers dropped around 10% and the street price of a gallon of gas
> dipped below $2 shortly thereafter.

Today the elasticity of auto gas is very, very inelastic. Many suggest
that that would not change until we top $5/gal for unleaded.

-Robert

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> Of course, with the price below $2/gal, people went right back to
>> their old ways and consumption (and prices) went right back up.
>
>Prices went down when the production facilities came back online; they went
>back up only after the world market price went up and a couple of our
>way-too-few facilities had to be brought down for service.
>

In Dec. of '05, 25% of the production facilities in the gulf region were
still offline when the prices dropped into the $2/gal. range. Domestic
consumption dropped drastically in Sept. and Oct. and were well below normal
in Dec, hence the price.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200705/1

[Matt Whiting]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On May 16, 5:52 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>> All very true. However, lack of capacity does not result in shortages
>>> as the OP suggests. In a free market lack of capacity or supply
>>> results in higher prices. Now, if the democrats try to cap prices or
>>> increase the tax on gas the restricted capacity would result in
>>> shortages.
>> It absolutely does result in shortages. Capacity can't be added in zero
>> time even if it is economically viable to do so. And prices have to
>> stay high enough, long enough to attract new investment. In the mean
>> time, shortages will occur ever more frequently even as the prices rise
>> dramatically.
>>
>> Matt
>
> I'm not sure how it is where you live but here gas prices can chance
> twice a day. Prices can change very quickly to reflect supply.

Same here. What is your point? A new refinery can't be built in a day
no matter how much money you have.

Matt

[john smith]

> I'm not sure teaching an entire economics class is possible within
> this forum but the short answer is, if the gov't stays out of it
> prices will quickly adjust to adjust to output levels. In the stock
> market supply of available stock changes by the second, as do
> commondities, exchange rates, etc, in all these cases prices adjust
> such that everyone can buy a share of stock, the only question is the
> price. In retail fuel, prices often change more than once per day.

We have also seen how the market can and will manipulate the supply to
raise the cost to the consumer. Hence the need for regulation.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Floyd L. Davidson" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>>"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anyone seeing any avgas shortages? I just learned that a local airport
>>>> (7N1) is out of gas. The FBO has a 10,000 gallon tank and ordered fuel
>>>> back in February and still hasn't received it. He ran out yesterday...
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>
>>> No, but I've been hearing reports that supply is very tight. The reasons
>>> of course are this country's complete failure to improve infastructure
>>> or explore for more supply of an important commodity.
>>
>>Oh, they know where it is (Continental shelf, ANWR, etc.), so exploration
>>is
>>rather worthless.
>
> Do you know what the know proven reserves in ANWR are?
> ZERO barrels. None, nada, zip.

Got a cite for that?

[Rest of blather snipped]

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:7253c73daad31@uwe...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, with the price below $2/gal, people went right back to
>>> their old ways and consumption (and prices) went right back up.
>>
>>Prices went down when the production facilities came back online; they
>>went
>>back up only after the world market price went up and a couple of our
>>way-too-few facilities had to be brought down for service.
>>
>
> In Dec. of '05, 25% of the production facilities in the gulf region were
> still offline when the prices dropped into the $2/gal. range. Domestic
> consumption dropped drastically in Sept. and Oct. and were well below
> normal
> in Dec, hence the price.
>

World market price was...what?

Winter weather forcecast was...what?

Try to keep more than two facets in mind at the same time.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "MB" == Matt Barrow > writes:

MB> Got a cite for that?

Usenet ain't a peer reviewed journal, ferchrissake. Requests for
"cites" are almost always a signal the requestor has been effectively
out-argued. If the requestor really wanted a cite they'd google for
it.
--
If I ever went to war, instead of throwing a grenade, I'd throw
one of those small pumpkins. Then maybe my enemy would pick up
the pumpkin and think about the futility of war. And that would
give me the time I need to hit him with a real grenade.
- Jack Handey

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Bob Fry > wrote:
>>>>>> "MB" == Matt Barrow > writes:
>
> MB> Got a cite for that?
>
>Usenet ain't a peer reviewed journal, ferchrissake. Requests for
>"cites" are almost always a signal the requestor has been effectively
>out-argued. If the requestor really wanted a cite they'd google for
>it.

If there were proven reserves in ANWR Matt would have
been very happy to run out the long list he would easily
have found on google of reports detailing every drop.
But there are no proven reserves in ANWR.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" > wrote:
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>>>Oh, they know where it is (Continental shelf, ANWR, etc.), so exploration
>>>is
>>>rather worthless.
>>
>> Do you know what the know proven reserves in ANWR are?
>> ZERO barrels. None, nada, zip.
>
>Got a cite for that?
>
>[Rest of blather snipped]

Blather, eh? Lets see you cite *any* proven reserves in
ANWR.

First, you can start with the USGS "Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998,
Including Economic Analysis" report the Congress,

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.pdf

See Figure 2, for a map that shows the location of the
one and the only exporation well ever drilled in ANWR
(by Chevron on 1985). Chevron was so tight lipped about
that particular hole that they even shipped the waste to
the Lower-48 for disposal at their own facilities rather
than risk any of it getting into the hands of a
competitor to be analyzed if it were sent to the nearby
facilities at Prudhoe Bay.

And do read the rest of the report to find where it
lists proven reserves. You might learn a lot, but it
will not give you any numbers for *proven* reserves,
because there are none.

Ball's in your court... and you might go read the rest
of that "blather" and see if it isn't just as precisely
correct as the comment about zero proven reserves i
ANWR.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Harald T]

Does anyone have information where and how many refineries are able to
produce 100LL. Is it a problem of logistics? It is hard to imagine that all
refineries all over the world are producing cargas and all the other
derivates beside avgas on a 100% capcity!

Heard once time ago that there should only be 4 refineries which are
producing avgas. Think there was a shortage in Southafrica then. Any
thoughts why?

Harald

[kontiki]

john smith wrote:
>
> We have also seen how the market can and will manipulate the supply to
> raise the cost to the consumer. Hence the need for regulation.

If I, as a farmer, decide the going price for beans is just too low to
make it worth the effort to plant any then the supply will go down and
perhaps the price will rise enough next year to make it worth while.

What make you think it is right (or beneficial) for the government to
step in and tell me to either plant beans (when I can't make a decent
profit doing so) or sell them at an abnormally low price becuase _it_
thinks the price is too high?

[kontiki]

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

>
> If there were proven reserves in ANWR Matt would have
> been very happy to run out the long list he would easily
> have found on google of reports detailing every drop.
> But there are no proven reserves in ANWR.
>

Well instead of just letting you be the one person to make
a judgment on whether or where to drill for gas and oil why
don't we just let the energy companies do what they do best -
explore and develop energy.

Thanks.

[kontiki]

Harald T wrote:

> Does anyone have information where and how many refineries are able to
> produce 100LL. Is it a problem of logistics? It is hard to imagine that all
> refineries all over the world are producing cargas and all the other
> derivates beside avgas on a 100% capcity!
>
> Heard once time ago that there should only be 4 refineries which are
> producing avgas. Think there was a shortage in Southafrica then. Any
> thoughts why?
>

I believe there are only three producing AVGAS now. I think part
of the problem is that for the amount invovlved its just becoming
more and more of a hassle and expense, due in part with conforming
with govt. regulations about lead and the logistics of shipping it
(can't use pipelines because of lead) and transportations costs are
rising.

[Matt Whiting]

Bob Fry wrote:
>>>>>> "MB" == Matt Barrow > writes:
>
> MB> Got a cite for that?
>
> Usenet ain't a peer reviewed journal, ferchrissake. Requests for
> "cites" are almost always a signal the requestor has been effectively
> out-argued. If the requestor really wanted a cite they'd google for
> it.

No, it is a sign that the requester thinks the person making the claim
is wrong. And, often on the internet this is the case.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Harald T wrote:
> Does anyone have information where and how many refineries are able to
> produce 100LL. Is it a problem of logistics? It is hard to imagine that all
> refineries all over the world are producing cargas and all the other
> derivates beside avgas on a 100% capcity!
>
> Heard once time ago that there should only be 4 refineries which are
> producing avgas. Think there was a shortage in Southafrica then. Any
> thoughts why?
>
> Harald
>
>

Nothing more than anecdotal. The person who told me about the airport
being dry said that there are only two refineries in the USA that still
make avgas. I haven't tried to confirm that, but given the low volume I
would not find this surprising.

Matt

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>> I'm not sure teaching an entire economics class is possible within
>> this forum but the short answer is, if the gov't stays out of it
>> prices will quickly adjust to adjust to output levels. In the stock
>> market supply of available stock changes by the second, as do
>> commondities, exchange rates, etc, in all these cases prices adjust
>> such that everyone can buy a share of stock, the only question is the
>> price. In retail fuel, prices often change more than once per day.
>
> We have also seen how the market can and will manipulate the supply to
> raise the cost to the consumer.

Cite? (and not some crackheaded commie site)

It can't be done short of government enforced markets.

>Hence the need for regulation.

Oh, and government doesn't manipulte and crisis monger?

Geez, man! Get a freaking clue!

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> john smith wrote:
>>
>> We have also seen how the market can and will manipulate the supply to
>> raise the cost to the consumer. Hence the need for regulation.
>
> If I, as a farmer, decide the going price for beans is just too low to
> make it worth the effort to plant any then the supply will go down and
> perhaps the price will rise enough next year to make it worth while.
>
> What make you think it is right (or beneficial) for the government to
> step in and tell me to either plant beans (when I can't make a decent
> profit doing so) or sell them at an abnormally low price becuase _it_
> thinks the price is too high?

Because he's been inured with group/thug "thinking" during his school years?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Floyd L. Davidson" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Fry > wrote:
>>>>>>> "MB" == Matt Barrow > writes:
>>
>> MB> Got a cite for that?
>>
>>Usenet ain't a peer reviewed journal, ferchrissake. Requests for
>>"cites" are almost always a signal the requestor has been effectively
>>out-argued. If the requestor really wanted a cite they'd google for
>>it.
>
> If there were proven reserves in ANWR Matt would have
> been very happy to run out the long list he would easily
> have found on google of reports detailing every drop.
> But there are no proven reserves in ANWR.

Bob Fry is a long-tern Usenet nutcase...and you got suckered in!


So answer the question, you fraud!

(Note" "Davidson" is a fairly common Usenet nut in his own right: he's opne
of the "Peak Oil" crowd. These guys engage in what's called "pre-conceptual
logic", the non-logic of lower animal species, which equates quite closely
with the "Flat Earth" crowd.)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>>
>> If there were proven reserves in ANWR Matt would have
>> been very happy to run out the long list he would easily
>> have found on google of reports detailing every drop.
>> But there are no proven reserves in ANWR.
>>
>
> Well instead of just letting you be the one person to make
> a judgment on whether or where to drill for gas and oil why
> don't we just let the energy companies do what they do best -
> explore and develop energy.
>
See my previous about Mr. Davidson.

Think of what "Proven Reserves" means. In 1900, the US "proven reserves" was
about 1 billion barrels.

Frauds like Davidson (and his eco-freak friends) are a part of the "peak
production" bunch that said US production would "peak" in the 1970's, just
like Paul Erlich said we would be starving by 1980.

Well, US production did peak in the 70's (see previous about refining
capacity), but only for a while. The peak was also a factor of regulations
espoused by folks like Davidson.

Now their efforts are blowing up and the denial is setting in.

Note, too, that total-nutcase Bob Fry has chimed in for his padded cellmate
Davidson. :~)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Floyd L. Davidson" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>>"Floyd L. Davidson" > wrote:
>>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>>>>Oh, they know where it is (Continental shelf, ANWR, etc.), so
>>>>exploration
>>>>is
>>>>rather worthless.
>>>
>>> Do you know what the know proven reserves in ANWR are?
>>> ZERO barrels. None, nada, zip.
>>
>>Got a cite for that?
>>
>>[Rest of blather snipped]
>
> Blather, eh? Lets see you cite *any* proven reserves in
> ANWR.

You made the claim, you prove it you f*cktard.

>
> First, you can start with the USGS "Arctic National
> Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998,
> Including Economic Analysis" report the Congress,
>
> http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.pdf
>
> See Figure 2, for a map that shows the location of the
> one and the only exporation well ever drilled in ANWR
> (by Chevron on 1985). Chevron was so tight lipped about
> that particular hole that they even shipped the waste to
> the Lower-48 for disposal at their own facilities rather
> than risk any of it getting into the hands of a
> competitor to be analyzed if it were sent to the nearby
> facilities at Prudhoe Bay.


That's not how reserves are calculated, you SFB fraud.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

kontiki > wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> If there were proven reserves in ANWR Matt would have
>> been very happy to run out the long list he would easily
>> have found on google of reports detailing every drop.
>> But there are no proven reserves in ANWR.
>>
>
>Well instead of just letting you be the one person to make
>a judgment on whether or where to drill for gas and oil why

I have never suggested such a ridiculous idea. Why are you?

>don't we just let the energy companies do what they do best -
>explore and develop energy.

Because the oil companies have exactly one thing in
mind, byt they are not the only ones affected. They
choose based soley on their profit margins. But for
example everyone (not just me, little one, *everyone*)
here wants to keep oil exploration out of certain areas
that are important to for local usage.

Regardless, that has *nothing* to do with the article
you replied to or the one it was responding to.

Once again, lets be precise: there has only been one
single well *ever* drilled in ANWR, and nobody other
than Chevron knows what it found; that necessarily means
there *cannot* *be* such a thing as proven reserves in
ANWR. None. Nada. Diddly squat zero. NO PROVEN
RESERVES.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
>Bob Fry wrote:
>>>>>>> "MB" == Matt Barrow > writes:
>> MB> Got a cite for that?
>> Usenet ain't a peer reviewed journal, ferchrissake.
>> Requests for
>> "cites" are almost always a signal the requestor has been effectively
>> out-argued. If the requestor really wanted a cite they'd google for
>> it.
>
>No, it is a sign that the requester thinks the person
>making the claim is wrong. And, often on the internet
>this is the case.

So when are *you* going to provide any indication that
someone (that you can cite) thinks there are proven
reserves in ANWR?

Given that only one well has ever been drilled, and it
was the tightest hole ever, just how could it even be
possible?

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" > wrote in message
...
>> Bob Fry > wrote:
>>>>>>>> "MB" == Matt Barrow > writes:
>>>
>>> MB> Got a cite for that?
>>>
>>>Usenet ain't a peer reviewed journal, ferchrissake. Requests for
>>>"cites" are almost always a signal the requestor has been effectively
>>>out-argued. If the requestor really wanted a cite they'd google for
>>>it.
>>
>> If there were proven reserves in ANWR Matt would have
>> been very happy to run out the long list he would easily
>> have found on google of reports detailing every drop.
>> But there are no proven reserves in ANWR.
>
>Bob Fry is a long-tern Usenet nutcase...and you got suckered in!
>
>So answer the question, you fraud!

I did answer the question. *YOU* are the fraud. You
have yet to provide *anything* which suggests my
original statement was other than precisely correct.

>(Note" "Davidson" is a fairly common Usenet nut in his own right: he's opne
>of the "Peak Oil" crowd. These guys engage in what's called "pre-conceptual
>logic", the non-logic of lower animal species, which equates quite closely
>with the "Flat Earth" crowd.)

So that sort of drivel is all you can come up with in response
to my previous comments...

Looks like you are the nutcase, given that sort of argument!

Skip the gratuitous personal insults Matt. Try proving your
points with logic. You've been given a cite that proves positively
there are no proven reserves in ANWR. What have you got to refute
the USGS?

You've been challenges several times now, but so far nothing...

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
>> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If there were proven reserves in ANWR Matt would have
>>> been very happy to run out the long list he would easily
>>> have found on google of reports detailing every drop.
>>> But there are no proven reserves in ANWR.
>>>
>>
>> Well instead of just letting you be the one person to make
>> a judgment on whether or where to drill for gas and oil why
>> don't we just let the energy companies do what they do best -
>> explore and develop energy.
>>
>See my previous about Mr. Davidson.
>
>Think of what "Proven Reserves" means. In 1900, the US "proven reserves" was
>about 1 billion barrels.
>
>Frauds like Davidson (and his eco-freak friends) are a part of the "peak
>production" bunch that said US production would "peak" in the 1970's, just
>like Paul Erlich said we would be starving by 1980.
>
>Well, US production did peak in the 70's (see previous about refining
>capacity), but only for a while. The peak was also a factor of regulations
>espoused by folks like Davidson.
>
>Now their efforts are blowing up and the denial is setting in.
>
>Note, too, that total-nutcase Bob Fry has chimed in for his padded cellmate
>Davidson. :~)

Note that Matt Barrow will not and cannot support his
statement that my points were incorrect. He is going
off the deep end about things that *I* have never
discussed and could care less about.

I don't keep up with the "peak oil" discussion... but
isn't it wierd to say it did peak in the 70's "but only
for a while"? It either did or it didn't.

I actually don't know. Did it or didn't it?

But better yet, what has that got to do with the simple
fact that there are *no* proven reserves in ANWR. None!
Zilch, nada, dot zip.

Oh, you want a cite?

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.pdf

"Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area,
Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic
Analysis", by the USGS.

In their analysis of petroleum resources in ANWR they do
not mention a single drop of proven reserves.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "kt" == kontiki > writes:

kt> why
kt> don't we just let the energy companies do what they do best -
kt> explore and develop energy.

We tried that over a hundred years ago. Didn't work. See
"anti-trust".
--
What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river
to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know.
- Jack Handey

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "kt" == kontiki > writes:

kt> If I, as a farmer, decide the going price for beans is just
kt> too low to make it worth the effort to plant any then the
kt> supply will go down and perhaps the price will rise enough
kt> next year to make it worth while.

kt> What make you think it is right (or beneficial) for the
kt> government to step in and tell me to either plant beans (when
kt> I can't make a decent profit doing so) or sell them at an
kt> abnormally low price becuase _it_ thinks the price is too
kt> high?

If there are zillions of independent farmers, yes, the free market can
then work. When there is an effective oligopoly
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly) as we have in the energy
markets then it probably needs regulation.
--
Why do people in ship mutinies always ask for "better treatment"?
I'd ask for a pinball machine, because with all that rocking back
and forth you'd probably be able to get a lot of free games.
- Jack Handey

[ktbr]

Bob Fry wrote:
>
> If there are zillions of independent farmers, yes, the free market can
> then work. When there is an effective oligopoly
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly) as we have in the energy
> markets then it probably needs regulation.

You are paranoid... fed by conspiracy therories about Haliburton,
the Trilateral Commission and Skull and Bones (etc.) from leftist
media (Rosie, Michael Moore, the leftist blogosphere etc.)

If government can't tax it then they want to regulate it.

[ktbr]

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

>
> Because the oil companies have exactly one thing in
> mind, byt they are not the only ones affected. They
> choose based soley on their profit margins. But for
> example everyone (not just me, little one, *everyone*)
> here wants to keep oil exploration out of certain areas
> that are important to for local usage.
>
Oh puhleeze. You bunch of anti-American/Anti-profit
pinheads sicken me. It's always "Big Oil"'s fault... or
some other big busnesses making NASTY profits that is
ruining everything. For your information they are the ones
that bring relatively cheap and efficient energy to your
house so you can take a warm bath.

The US government hasn't generated one watt of electricity
or produced one barrel of oil, yet they make more money
per gallon of gasoline than the oil companies or gas stations
do. And do they re-invest that money in new drilling techniques...
alternate energy source... or exploration??????? _NO_

They SPEND it ... buying votes. In other words, BLOWING IT.

I give up on you people.

[ktbr]

Bob Fry wrote:
>
> kt> why
> kt> don't we just let the energy companies do what they do best -
> kt> explore and develop energy.
>
> We tried that over a hundred years ago. Didn't work. See
> "anti-trust".

Oh, and what other entity do you suggest is (or has) done a better
job of bringing inexpensive energy right to you home to you can take
a warm bath???? government??? HAHahahahaha

The US government hasn't generated one watt of electricity
or produced one barrel of oil, yet they make more money
per gallon of gasoline than the oil companies or gas stations
do. And do they re-invest that money in new drilling techniques...
alternate energy sources... or exploration...??????? _NO_

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" > wrote in message
...
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>>>"Floyd L. Davidson" > wrote:
>>>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>>>>>Oh, they know where it is (Continental shelf, ANWR, etc.), so
>>>>>exploration
>>>>>is
>>>>>rather worthless.
>>>>
>>>> Do you know what the know proven reserves in ANWR are?
>>>> ZERO barrels. None, nada, zip.
>>>
>>>Got a cite for that?
>>>
>>>[Rest of blather snipped]
>>
>> Blather, eh? Lets see you cite *any* proven reserves in
>> ANWR.
>
>You made the claim, you prove it you f*cktard.

I did. And you are kind of left swinging in the wind.

Just to rub it in, here's another one:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1732/pp1732a/pp1732a.pdf

That is titled "Oil and Gas Resources of the Arctic
Alaska Petroleum Province", and lists all "proven
reserves" on the North Slope, as well as the
"undiscovered petroleum resources". Since there are no
known producible fields in ANWR, there are no proven
reserves listed there. The USGS report that I cited
previously has potential estimates for ANWR, and in this
report those are of course discussed under
"undiscovered" resources, as the obviously should be.

It is exceedingly clear that you don't know much about
ANWR and apparently haven't got a clue what "proven
reserves" even are. Otherwise you wouldn't be making a
fool of yourself suggesting that a place that has never
been drilled has proven reserves.

We don't actually know that anyone will ever find even
one bucket of oil in ANWR!

>> First, you can start with the USGS "Arctic National
>> Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998,
>> Including Economic Analysis" report the Congress,
>>
>> http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.pdf
>>
>> See Figure 2, for a map that shows the location of the
>> one and the only exporation well ever drilled in ANWR
>> (by Chevron on 1985). Chevron was so tight lipped about
>> that particular hole that they even shipped the waste to
>> the Lower-48 for disposal at their own facilities rather
>> than risk any of it getting into the hands of a
>> competitor to be analyzed if it were sent to the nearby
>> facilities at Prudhoe Bay.
>
>That's not how reserves are calculated, you SFB fraud.

So explain to us just how proven reserves *are* calculated!

Let me give you a hint: wells.

No wells... no proven reserves.

Anyone can certainly see why you clipped virtually
everything in my first article and didn't want to even
attempt a defense of the flaws it demonstrated in the
article of yours that I responded to!

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Floyd L. Davidson]

ktbr > wrote:
>Bob Fry wrote:
>> kt> why
>> kt> don't we just let the energy companies do what they do best -
>> kt> explore and develop energy.
>> We tried that over a hundred years ago. Didn't work.
>> See
>> "anti-trust".
>
>Oh, and what other entity do you suggest is (or has) done a better
>job of bringing inexpensive energy right to you home to you can take
>a warm bath???? government??? HAHahahahaha

The point however, is who should choose which areas are
explored, and which they are not. Just letting oil
companies explore anywhere they chose is insane.

The choice is, by definition, a function of
"government". It might be local government, state
government, federal, or some combination of those, but
"government" is by definition what the entity that makes
the decision is called.

>The US government hasn't generated one watt of electricity
>or produced one barrel of oil, yet they make more money
>per gallon of gasoline than the oil companies or gas stations
>do. And do they re-invest that money in new drilling techniques...
>alternate energy sources... or exploration...??????? _NO_

What has that got to do with who decides where exploration is
allowed and where it is not?

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Floyd L. Davidson]

ktbr > wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> Because the oil companies have exactly one thing in
>> mind, byt they are not the only ones affected. They
>> choose based soley on their profit margins. But for
>> example everyone (not just me, little one, *everyone*)
>> here wants to keep oil exploration out of certain areas
>> that are important to for local usage.
>>
>Oh puhleeze. You bunch of anti-American/Anti-profit
>pinheads sicken me. It's always "Big Oil"'s fault... or

It is only Big Oil's fault if you let them.

If you think that letting them isn't asking for a
disaster, you've got your head in the sand. Have you
been paying attention lately? Big Oil has been buying
the Alaska State Legislature for years, they have not
been doing maintenance on pipelines, and almost 20 years
later they *still* won't pay off the fisherment from
Prince William Sound whose lives were destroyed by the
Exxon Valdez spill.

There simply is *no* denying that Big Oil requires a
regulated environment.

>some other big busnesses making NASTY profits that is
>ruining everything. For your information they are the ones
>that bring relatively cheap and efficient energy to your
>house so you can take a warm bath.

That is a bit of a simply minded perception, and does not
approach reality.

>The US government hasn't generated one watt of electricity
>or produced one barrel of oil, yet they make more money
>per gallon of gasoline than the oil companies or gas stations
>do. And do they re-invest that money in new drilling techniques...
>alternate energy source... or exploration??????? _NO_
>
>They SPEND it ... buying votes. In other words, BLOWING IT.
>
>I give up on you people.

It is hard to keep up with issues that are so far over
your head.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Bob Fry wrote:
>>>>>>>> "MB" == Matt Barrow > writes:
>>> MB> Got a cite for that?
>>> Usenet ain't a peer reviewed journal, ferchrissake.
>>> Requests for
>>> "cites" are almost always a signal the requestor has been
>>> effectively out-argued. If the requestor really wanted a cite
>>> they'd google for it.
>>
>> No, it is a sign that the requester thinks the person
>> making the claim is wrong. And, often on the internet
>> this is the case.
>
> So when are *you* going to provide any indication that
> someone (that you can cite) thinks there are proven
> reserves in ANWR?

Sorry that's not how it works. The guy making the claim is the guy that has
to back it up.

But the first result of a Google search of "ANWR oil reserves" gives this
link.

http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm

Which in part says, "The Coastal Plain of ANWR's 1002 area is the nation's
single greatest onshore oil reserve. The USGS estimates that it contains a
mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil.
To put that into context, the potential daily production from ANWR's 1002
area is larger than the current daily onshore oil production of any of the
lower 48 states."

[ktbr]

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

>
>>The US government hasn't generated one watt of electricity
>>or produced one barrel of oil, yet they make more money
>>per gallon of gasoline than the oil companies or gas stations
>>do. And do they re-invest that money in new drilling techniques...
>>alternate energy sources... or exploration...??????? _NO_
>
>
> What has that got to do with who decides where exploration is
> allowed and where it is not?
>

That fact that you do not see the relevence merely serves to
illustrate just how much of the problem you people are.

[ktbr]

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

>
> It is hard to keep up with issues that are so far over
> your head.
>

The reason you think they are not above yours is because
your head comes to such a tall point.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"ktbr" > wrote in message
...
> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>>
>> It is hard to keep up with issues that are so far over
>> your head.
>>
>
> The reason you think they are not above yours is because
> your head comes to such a tall point.

Forget it! He's a fraud. He doesn't even know how potential reserves are
calculated. (HINT: Not necessarily with exploratory wells.

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 17, 5:06 pm, john smith > wrote:
> > I'm not sure teaching an entire economics class is possible within
> > this forum but the short answer is, if the gov't stays out of it
> > prices will quickly adjust to adjust to output levels. In the stock
> > market supply of available stock changes by the second, as do
> > commondities, exchange rates, etc, in all these cases prices adjust
> > such that everyone can buy a share of stock, the only question is the
> > price. In retail fuel, prices often change more than once per day.
>
> We have also seen how the market can and will manipulate the supply to
> raise the cost to the consumer. Hence the need for regulation.

That can only happen if the different suppliers corrdinate. In a
competitive environment, no company would agree to sit back and reduce
supply knowing they could jump in and take the market away from the
comptition. It would like like two cowboys having a shoot out at high
noon and neither pulling the trigger. That is a very, very serious
crime ( antitrust ) and if they are working together I would be the
first to say there should be serious jail time. However, in general,
this is a charge often made by liberals who don't understand common
market forces.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"ktbr" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Fry wrote:
>>
>> kt> why
>> kt> don't we just let the energy companies do what they do best -
>> kt> explore and develop energy.
>>
>> We tried that over a hundred years ago. Didn't work. See
>> "anti-trust".

Here Fry shows his total ignorance again.

Let me guess: he didn't realize that most of hte "Anti Trust" movement was
based on fake data and a bogus biography by one of Rockefeller's compeitors
daughter that was 99.8% BS (her old man was a total loser).

>
> Oh, and what other entity do you suggest is (or has) done a better
> job of bringing inexpensive energy right to you home to you can take
> a warm bath???? government??? HAHahahahaha
>

Yeah, like OPEC and, now, Russia, Venezula...

Fry, you need to get back on your meds.

No, not the meds you bought on your street corner from Big Mike...

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>> Bob Fry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "MB" == Matt Barrow > writes:
>>>> MB> Got a cite for that?
>>>> Usenet ain't a peer reviewed journal, ferchrissake.
>>>> Requests for
>>>> "cites" are almost always a signal the requestor has been
>>>> effectively out-argued. If the requestor really wanted a cite
>>>> they'd google for it.
>>>
>>> No, it is a sign that the requester thinks the person
>>> making the claim is wrong. And, often on the internet
>>> this is the case.
>>
>> So when are *you* going to provide any indication that
>> someone (that you can cite) thinks there are proven
>> reserves in ANWR?
>
> Sorry that's not how it works. The guy making the claim is the guy that
> has to back it up.
>
> But the first result of a Google search of "ANWR oil reserves" gives this
> link.
>
> http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm
>
> Which in part says, "The Coastal Plain of ANWR's 1002 area is the nation's
> single greatest onshore oil reserve. The USGS estimates that it contains a
> mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable
> oil. To put that into context, the potential daily production from ANWR's
> 1002 area is larger than the current daily onshore oil production of any
> of the lower 48 states."
>
>
Forget it, GIg! Davidson IHWITHI has had his ass handed to him in several
other groups in the past, but he's like a terminal virus.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"ktbr" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Fry wrote:
>>
>> If there are zillions of independent farmers, yes, the free market can
>> then work. When there is an effective oligopoly
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly) as we have in the energy
>> markets then it probably needs regulation.

The "Bob" twins: Bob Fry and Robert Muggabe - in bed together.

>
> You are paranoid... fed by conspiracy therories about Haliburton,
> the Trilateral Commission and Skull and Bones (etc.) from leftist
> media (Rosie, Michael Moore, the leftist blogosphere etc.)
>

It's called "statist" or "statism". It's the foundation of every tyranny,
but always dresses up as "benevolent".

We need "zillions" of farmers to make a free-market work (bogus, to say the
least, but that's Fry's stock-in-trade), but one or two corrupt
politicians/bureaucrasts can bring it all to it's knees.

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 18, 8:07 am, Bob Fry > wrote:
> >>>>> "kt" == kontiki > writes:
>
> kt> If I, as a farmer, decide the going price for beans is just
> kt> too low to make it worth the effort to plant any then the
> kt> supply will go down and perhaps the price will rise enough
> kt> next year to make it worth while.
>
> kt> What make you think it is right (or beneficial) for the
> kt> government to step in and tell me to either plant beans (when
> kt> I can't make a decent profit doing so) or sell them at an
> kt> abnormally low price becuase _it_ thinks the price is too
> kt> high?
>
> If there are zillions of independent farmers, yes, the free market can
> then work. When there is an effective oligopoly
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly) as we have in the energy
> markets then it probably needs regulation.
> --
> Why do people in ship mutinies always ask for "better treatment"?
> I'd ask for a pinball machine, because with all that rocking back
> and forth you'd probably be able to get a lot of free games.
> - Jack Handey

There is certainly not an oligopoly in the supply of crude oil. I'm
not familiar enough with the fuel's market to tell you if there may be
further down the chain (distribution, refining, etc). I have heard
some suggestions that some oil producers may have been growing through
vertical integration (i.e. they don't control the crude but may be
creating exclusive channels of distribution). If that is the case, it
may be appropriate for the gov't to break them up (as they did with
the old AT&T). Free market does require a small amount of gov't
restriction to ensure competition (oddly, liberal polititions often
fight against competition ref unions, anti Walmart, etc). However, the
current ideas being thrown around (Win Fall tax, etc) either show an
incredible ignorance that will cost consumers dearly or is simply
pandering.

Rrobert, MBA, Master in Finance

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Free market does require a small amount of gov't
> restriction to ensure competition (oddly, liberal polititions often
> fight against competition ref unions, anti Walmart, etc).

A free market requires government to enforce contracts and keep companies
from restricting their competitors (i.e., preventing companies from
preventing their competitors from entering the market). That's all.

I wonder if Bob ever considered how many farmers are prevented from farming
due to his buddies environmental restrictions. Let's see: who can afford to
cover those kinds of costs? Gee...big corporate farmers, like ADM?

Yeah, we know, Bob; Government will just have to subsidize the "little
guys".. That's how ADM got started.

[ktbr]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> Nothing more than anecdotal. The person who told me about the airport
> being dry said that there are only two refineries in the USA that still
> make avgas. I haven't tried to confirm that, but given the low volume I
> would not find this surprising.
>

This excellent video should explain quite clearly (even to the pinheads)
why our energy consumption (to include gasoline) is way up and why
we are experiencing tight supplies and higher costs.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265&q=roy+beck&h

If you have an ounce of intellectual honesty in you will see
that government... ands its failure to make good and proper
decisions is at fault. Leadership and rational pragmatism is
ultimately needed but government has none of it.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"ktbr" > wrote in message
...

>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265&q=roy+beck&h
>
> If you have an ounce of intellectual honesty in you will see
> that government... ands its failure to make good and proper
> decisions is at fault. Leadership and rational pragmatism is
> ultimately needed but government has none of it.
>

Umm..."pragmatism" is where they say "At least he made the trains run on
time".

Slippery slope to say the least.

[ktbr]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> There is certainly not an oligopoly in the supply of crude oil. I'm
> not familiar enough with the fuel's market to tell you if there may be
> further down the chain (distribution, refining, etc). I have heard
> some suggestions that some oil producers may have been growing through
> vertical integration (i.e. they don't control the crude but may be
> creating exclusive channels of distribution). If that is the case, it
> may be appropriate for the gov't to break them up (as they did with
> the old AT&T).

Oh, great. Lets let the 'great minds' in the Senate decide how to
more efficiently explore for, produce and deliver energy to the
American people. I can't wait to see how much lower my energy costs
are going to be with Ted Kennedy in charge.

> Free market does require a small amount of gov't
> restriction to ensure competition (oddly, liberal polititions often
> fight against competition ref unions, anti Walmart, etc).
> However, the current ideas being thrown around (Win Fall tax, etc)
> either show an incredible ignorance that will cost consumers dearly
> or is simply pandering.
>

Now you are talking sense again.

[ktbr]

Matt Barrow wrote:

>
> Umm..."pragmatism" is where they say "At least he made the trains run on
> time".
>
> Slippery slope to say the least.
>
>

That was probably not the ideal choice ofevery American...
or anyone concerned about why things are getting so screwed
up so quickly.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

ktbr > wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>>
>>>The US government hasn't generated one watt of electricity
>>>or produced one barrel of oil, yet they make more money
>>>per gallon of gasoline than the oil companies or gas stations
>>>do. And do they re-invest that money in new drilling techniques...
>>>alternate energy sources... or exploration...??????? _NO_
>> What has that got to do with who decides where
>> exploration is
>> allowed and where it is not?
>>
>
>That fact that you do not see the relevence merely serves to
>illustrate just how much of the problem you people are.

The fact that you can't make a connection points out how utterly
silly your arguments are.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>> Bob Fry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "MB" == Matt Barrow > writes:
>>>> MB> Got a cite for that?
>>>> Usenet ain't a peer reviewed journal, ferchrissake.
>>>> Requests for
>>>> "cites" are almost always a signal the requestor has been
>>>> effectively out-argued. If the requestor really wanted a cite
>>>> they'd google for it.
>>>
>>> No, it is a sign that the requester thinks the person
>>> making the claim is wrong. And, often on the internet
>>> this is the case.
>>
>> So when are *you* going to provide any indication that
>> someone (that you can cite) thinks there are proven
>> reserves in ANWR?
>
>Sorry that's not how it works. The guy making the claim is the guy that has
>to back it up.

Sorry, but that *is* how it works. NOBODY can provide a
cite to an absense of information, which is what Matt is
requesting of me.

If *he* is correct, he can easily prove it by merely
citing a credible source that says there are in fact
"proven reserves" in ANWR. (He can't because there are
none.)

But there is nothing that I or anyone can cite that
proves there are no such sources.

>But the first result of a Google search of "ANWR oil reserves" gives this
>link.
>
>http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm
>
>Which in part says, "The Coastal Plain of ANWR's 1002 area is the nation's
>single greatest onshore oil reserve. The USGS estimates that it contains a
>mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil.

Estimates... that makes it, not a "proven reserve", but
what is called a "probable reserve". They are guessing
based on a lack of drilled wells to demonstrate that
there is *any* oil there at all.

Does it mention how many wells have been drilled in ANWR
to determine if there actually is oil??? One. KPC-1,
capped in 1985.

>To put that into context, the potential daily production from ANWR's 1002
>area is larger than the current daily onshore oil production of any of the
>lower 48 states."

But it does *not* say there are any proven reserves in
ANWR. If you do exactly the same research on NPR-A,
you'll find that while they do list potential reserves
in terms of 5% and 95% probability plus a median, for
technically recoverable oil just as they do for ANWR,
except that for the NPR-A they also specifically list
"proven reserves". That is because there have been
*many* wells drilled over the past 50 years, and some of
them came up with oil.

The most interesting part is that the total estimates
for ANWR and NPR-A are just about the same. Given that
in 50 years of exploration there hasn't been enough oil
discovered in NPR-A to result in a single drop of
production, one might want to question just how long it
would take to find any in ANWR either. The significance
is that in both areas geologists say there will only be
relatively small pools of oil, rather than any single
large pools such as Kuparuk, Prudhoe Bay or West Sak.
It might take, as with NPR-A, many years before there is
a total worth building infrastructure to produce.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>Forget it, GIg! Davidson IHWITHI has had his ass handed to him in several
>other groups in the past, but he's like a terminal virus.

You make a lot of wild statements that are little more than emotional
exaggerations.

But you sure don't want to debate facts do you. Loser.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Floyd L. Davidson]

ktbr > wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> It is hard to keep up with issues that are so far over
>> your head.
>>
>
>The reason you think they are not above yours is because
>your head comes to such a tall point.

And that's why I argue with facts and figures, based on
knowledge of the topic. And all you do is call names and
squeal.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>"ktbr" > wrote in message
...
>> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It is hard to keep up with issues that are so far over
>>> your head.
>>>
>>
>> The reason you think they are not above yours is because
>> your head comes to such a tall point.
>
>Forget it! He's a fraud. He doesn't even know how potential reserves are
>calculated. (HINT: Not necessarily with exploratory wells.

Name one "proven reserve" in the US that has not been explored with
wells.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>> Sorry that's not how it works. The guy making the claim is the guy
>> that has to back it up.
>
> Sorry, but that *is* how it works. NOBODY can provide a
> cite to an absense of information, which is what Matt is
> requesting of me.
>


So you are admitting that you have no information. Great!





> If *he* is correct, he can easily prove it by merely
> citing a credible source that says there are in fact
> "proven reserves" in ANWR. (He can't because there are
> none.)
>
> But there is nothing that I or anyone can cite that
> proves there are no such sources.
>
>> But the first result of a Google search of "ANWR oil reserves" gives
>> this link.
>>
>> http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm
>>
>> Which in part says, "The Coastal Plain of ANWR's 1002 area is the
>> nation's single greatest onshore oil reserve. The USGS estimates
>> that it contains a mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of
>> technically recoverable oil.
>
> Estimates... that makes it, not a "proven reserve", but
> what is called a "probable reserve". They are guessing
> based on a lack of drilled wells to demonstrate that
> there is *any* oil there at all.
>

To be intellectually honest there is no way to PROVE oil reserves short of
pumping it ALL out of the ground and counting the barrels. Until you do that
it is all an educated guess. So I posted an educated guess that there is
10.4 billion barrels under ANWR.

So to get he information and proof you want we have to pump what is there
out. I say we go for it. If when they empty it out and if we find you are
right and I am wrong I will publicly apologize. If the promise of my apology
isn't enough think how much money the big, mean oil companies will loose if
there isn't enough oil there. That should make you happy.

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 18, 11:09 am, ktbr > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> > There is certainly not an oligopoly in the supply of crude oil. I'm
> > not familiar enough with the fuel's market to tell you if there may be
> > further down the chain (distribution, refining, etc). I have heard
> > some suggestions that some oil producers may have been growing through
> > vertical integration (i.e. they don't control the crude but may be
> > creating exclusive channels of distribution). If that is the case, it
> > may be appropriate for the gov't to break them up (as they did with
> > the old AT&T).
>
> Oh, great. Lets let the 'great minds' in the Senate decide how to
> more efficiently explore for, produce and deliver energy to the
> American people. I can't wait to see how much lower my energy costs
> are going to be with Ted Kennedy in charge.

Breaking up a big company can increase efficiency, not reduce it, if
their size prevents competition. At one point Boeing owned the only
viable airline. You may be able to argue that some certain situation
does not justify a gov't breaking up a company, but there is no
logical way you could be arguing that it is never necessary.

-Robert

[Matt Whiting]

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Bob Fry wrote:
>>>>>>>> "MB" == Matt Barrow > writes:
>>> MB> Got a cite for that?
>>> Usenet ain't a peer reviewed journal, ferchrissake.
>>> Requests for
>>> "cites" are almost always a signal the requestor has been effectively
>>> out-argued. If the requestor really wanted a cite they'd google for
>>> it.
>> No, it is a sign that the requester thinks the person
>> making the claim is wrong. And, often on the internet
>> this is the case.
>
> So when are *you* going to provide any indication that
> someone (that you can cite) thinks there are proven
> reserves in ANWR?

I never made any claim about ANWR so I have no need to provide anything.
Try to keep up with the attributions so you know who said what.

Matt

[John Galban]

On May 17, 8:00 pm, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:

>
>
> Try to keep more than two facets in mind at the same time
>

I do. I pay for a lot of data about this sector. I was merely
responding to your (single) data point that gulf production had
recovered. It had not.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA281-180)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 18, 11:09 am, ktbr > wrote:
>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>> Oh, great. Lets let the 'great minds' in the Senate decide how to
>> more efficiently explore for, produce and deliver energy to the
>> American people. I can't wait to see how much lower my energy costs
>> are going to be with Ted Kennedy in charge.
>
> Breaking up a big company can increase efficiency, not reduce it, if
> their size prevents competition. At one point Boeing owned the only
> viable airline. You may be able to argue that some certain situation
> does not justify a gov't breaking up a company, but there is no
> logical way you could be arguing that it is never necessary.
>

Which side of your mouth are you going to talk out of next?

GEEZ!

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>> Sorry that's not how it works. The guy making the claim is the guy
>>> that has to back it up.
>>
>> Sorry, but that *is* how it works. NOBODY can provide a
>> cite to an absense of information, which is what Matt is
>> requesting of me.
>
>So you are admitting that you have no information. Great!

About 30 years ago when my children hit age 10 I had to
explain that twisting words was not just dishonest, but
really annoying when people are attempting serious
conversations. It is only appropriate for jokes, and even
then is considered low humor.

Somebody should have taught you the same, assuming you
are now at least 10 years old.

I do have a great deal of information about such things
as ANWR, the oil reserves on the North Slope, and what
defines different types of reserves. That appears to be
something nobody else in this discussion actually has
(which is not surprising, given that I live on the North
Slope and it is *my* backyard we are talking about).

>> If *he* is correct, he can easily prove it by merely
>> citing a credible source that says there are in fact
>> "proven reserves" in ANWR. (He can't because there are
>> none.)
>>
>> But there is nothing that I or anyone can cite that
>> proves there are no such sources.
>>
>>> But the first result of a Google search of "ANWR oil reserves" gives
>>> this link.
>>>
>>> http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm
>>>
>>> Which in part says, "The Coastal Plain of ANWR's 1002 area is the
>>> nation's single greatest onshore oil reserve. The USGS estimates
>>> that it contains a mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of
>>> technically recoverable oil.
>>
>> Estimates... that makes it, not a "proven reserve", but
>> what is called a "probable reserve". They are guessing
>> based on a lack of drilled wells to demonstrate that
>> there is *any* oil there at all.
>>
>
>To be intellectually honest there is no way to PROVE oil reserves short of

That is not intellectual honesty, it is abject ignorance
of what the term "proven reserves" means. It is not
proven in the same sense that mathematical proofs are,
or even in the way that something in a court case is
proven.

The words "proven reserves" are what is called a term of
art. It has a well known meaning within the particular
field where it is used, and does not necessarily mean
exactly what those two words would mean out side of that
context.

It is *not* just some random definition, but is defined
rather precisely by the Society of Petroleum Engineers.
(Consider that things like taxes and stock prices are based
on these definitions... so while *you* don't have a clue
what it means, the people who cite those number for the
government or for the oil companies are being extremely
precise.)

Proven reserves are those where the estimate of what can
be produced economically is made with information from
either exploratory wells or production wells. (It is
sometimes also divided farther between those two,
because there is a distinction in how much investment is
required for recovery, which is important information for
someone about to invest in an oil company stock.)

Probable reserve estimates are based on geological
evidence other than drilled wells. That can include
seismic work, for example.

>pumping it ALL out of the ground and counting the barrels. Until you do that
>it is all an educated guess. So I posted an educated guess that there is
>10.4 billion barrels under ANWR.

Another less than enlightened statement. Geologists
(i.e., the USGS) estimate the probable reserves in ANWR
as 11,799 million barrels at 5% probability and 4,254
million barrels at a 95% probability. That gives a
median at 7,668 million barrels.

Your 10.4 billion figure indicates you haven't been
paying attention, because you have the right number but
you are attributing it incorrectly to ANWR. It includes
state and Native owned land in the north east corner of
Alaska that does not require Congressional approval to
explore.

>So to get he information and proof you want we have to pump what is there
>out. I say we go for it.

That would certainly sound cute to most 10 year olds.
But this discussion really should not be aimed at
children so young.

>If when they empty it out and if we find you are
>right and I am wrong I will publicly apologize. If the promise of my apology
>isn't enough think how much money the big, mean oil companies will loose if
>there isn't enough oil there. That should make you happy.

You probably haven't noticed that the oil companies are
not the ones clamoring to get access to ANWR. They want
more to move towards the west side of Prudhoe Bay and to
offshore exploration. (If you had half a clue about
geology and oil production on the North Slope, the
reasons for that would obvious. My bet is you'd never
heard of the idea and don't know what to make of it.)

Maybe you should figure out why it happened that former
Governor Frank Murkowski could offer leases on State
owned offshore areas just north of ANWR... and *nobody*
even bid on them. Not *one* bid.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"ktbr" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>
>> Umm..."pragmatism" is where they say "At least he made the trains run on
>> time".
>>
>> Slippery slope to say the least.
>
> That was probably not the ideal choice ofevery American...
> or anyone concerned about why things are getting so screwed
> up so quickly.
>
Think: principles

This requires long-term view of things and also integrative thought.

Pragmatism is short-term, whim based.

Priciples, correctly done, are self-corrective. Pragmatism leads, as we see
in current society, the heaping on of more and more "corrective action" in
the form of "vicious cycles". (Think" "Throw more money at the problem".)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>> Sorry that's not how it works. The guy making the claim is the guy
>>> that has to back it up.
>>
>> Sorry, but that *is* how it works. NOBODY can provide a
>> cite to an absense of information, which is what Matt is
>> requesting of me.
>>
>
>
> So you are admitting that you have no information. Great!
>
>
Shizam!!

>>
>> Estimates... that makes it, not a "proven reserve", but
>> what is called a "probable reserve". They are guessing
>> based on a lack of drilled wells to demonstrate that
>> there is *any* oil there at all.
>>
>
> To be intellectually honest there is no way to PROVE oil reserves short of
> pumping it ALL out of the ground and counting the barrels. Until you do
> that it is all an educated guess. So I posted an educated guess that there
> is 10.4 billion barrels under ANWR.

BINGO!!

Recall note about "Pre-Conceptual" thinking and the Flat Earth types.

>
> So to get he information and proof you want we have to pump what is there
> out. I say we go for it. If when they empty it out and if we find you are
> right and I am wrong I will publicly apologize.

And most likely you will use your own capital to find out whether you're
right or wrong. Oil exploration firms do this all the time.

> If the promise of my apology isn't enough think how much money the big,
> mean oil companies will loose if there isn't enough oil there. That should
> make you happy.

:~)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"John Galban" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 17, 8:00 pm, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Try to keep more than two facets in mind at the same time
>>
>
> I do. I pay for a lot of data about this sector. I was merely
> responding to your (single) data point that gulf production had
> recovered. It had not.

I didn't say it had recovered. Not entirely, but it recoved most of what it
had lost.

Are you saying the lost of Guld production facilities was not a factor in
price increases? Further, are you saying that mere _conservation_ caused the
prices to decline back towards $2 a gallon?

You're looking at data points, not overall causation.

What was the world market price of oil? You still haven't answered that
question. Also, how much more processed fuel was imported compared to raw
petroleum?

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> On May 18, 11:09 am, ktbr > wrote:
>>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh, great. Lets let the 'great minds' in the Senate decide how to
>>> more efficiently explore for, produce and deliver energy to the
>>> American people. I can't wait to see how much lower my energy costs
>>> are going to be with Ted Kennedy in charge.
>>
>> Breaking up a big company can increase efficiency, not reduce it, if
>> their size prevents competition. At one point Boeing owned the only
>> viable airline. You may be able to argue that some certain situation
>> does not justify a gov't breaking up a company, but there is no
>> logical way you could be arguing that it is never necessary.
>>
>
>Which side of your mouth are you going to talk out of next?
>
>GEEZ!

Why is it you cannot argue issues on any topic, and
instead have to stoop to this low life gratuitous insult
game every time somebody posts an argument or opinion
that you cannot refute?

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>> So you are admitting that you have no information. Great!
>>
>>
>Shizam!!

Lets be clear, *you* are the one who has not posted any
useful information, and appears to have none.

People who want to play word games worthy only of 10 year olds
tend not to be well versed on much of anything...

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Luke Skywalker]

On May 16, 8:18 am, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:

> The fact is that U.S. refining capacity has been growing at about 1% a year
> for the past decade - the equivalent of adding a mid-size refinery every
> year. Since 1996, U.S. refiners have expanded capacity by more than 2
> million barrels a day This is a remarkable achievement in the face of
> environmental mandates setting new ethanol usage and low-sulfur
> requirements.
>
> But the last major refinery built in the U.S. was in Garyville, La., in 1976
> and the ones we have are getting older, no matter how well they're
> maintained.

I dont know about the rest of the country but I do know about
Louisiana. Right now you cannot go to a refinery complex on the
Southern Louisiana area and not see them doing MASSIVE expansion,
doubling sometimes tripling the refinery complex. From Norco/Avondale/
St. Rose near MSY (just south of it) up the river to L38 (Gonzalez)
where Sorento/Giesimer/Fina etc all the way to Baton Rouge (Port
Allen) the bulldozers and welders are working as we speak.

You mention Garyville. That is the Marathon Garyville refinery near
REserve airport. In the last year it has doubled its size and now is
set for at least a doubling of that size. They are 'as we speak"
clearing the old sugar cane fields for new "smokestacks". The
Chocktow is also expanding.

the "we have not built a new refinery since XXXX" sounds good but is
misleading.

Avgas in LA is cracked at the Sorento refinery near L38.

Robert
At St. James tank farm it has tripled since Katrina the number of
storage tanks.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> Think: principles
>
> This requires long-term view of things and also integrative thought.

I agree.

>
> Pragmatism is short-term, whim based.
>
> Priciples, correctly done, are self-corrective. Pragmatism leads, as we see
> in current society, the heaping on of more and more "corrective action" in
> the form of "vicious cycles". (Think" "Throw more money at the problem".)

well, pragmatism is not necessarily bad, and is NOT "whim based"

Pragmastism isn't really part of the problem. Short-sighted goals and
selfishness labelled as pragmatism is.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Luke Skywalker" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On May 16, 8:18 am, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
>
>> The fact is that U.S. refining capacity has been growing at about 1% a
>> year
>> for the past decade - the equivalent of adding a mid-size refinery every
>> year. Since 1996, U.S. refiners have expanded capacity by more than 2
>> million barrels a day This is a remarkable achievement in the face of
>> environmental mandates setting new ethanol usage and low-sulfur
>> requirements.
>>
>> But the last major refinery built in the U.S. was in Garyville, La., in
>> 1976
>> and the ones we have are getting older, no matter how well they're
>> maintained.
>
> I dont know about the rest of the country but I do know about
> Louisiana. Right now you cannot go to a refinery complex on the
> Southern Louisiana area and not see them doing MASSIVE expansion,
> doubling sometimes tripling the refinery complex. From Norco/Avondale/
> St. Rose near MSY (just south of it) up the river to L38 (Gonzalez)
> where Sorento/Giesimer/Fina etc all the way to Baton Rouge (Port
> Allen) the bulldozers and welders are working as we speak.


Doing what?

You say "expansion", but what are they expanding?

Now, if you'd read back to the original article, you'd find some interesting
data that you happened to snip.

>
> You mention Garyville. That is the Marathon Garyville refinery near
> REserve airport. In the last year it has doubled its size and now is
> set for at least a doubling of that size. They are 'as we speak"
> clearing the old sugar cane fields for new "smokestacks". The
> Chocktow is also expanding.

"Expanding" what? Capacity? How much capacity expansion? (Original vs new).

> the "we have not built a new refinery since XXXX" sounds good but is
> misleading.

Only if we can keep updating 1970's technology.

> Avgas in LA is cracked at the Sorento refinery near L38.

----------------
(What follows is not necessarily directed at Luke)

Hey, folks! Keep the old crap. Keep ANWR, the outer shelf and all the rest
nice and pristine.

There's no shortage of capacity (according to our resident "experts"), so
what are we worried about. If the price goes to $4.00 for Mogas and $5.50
for avgas, it's just the oil companies ripping us off.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> Think: principles
>>
>> This requires long-term view of things and also integrative thought.
>
> I agree.
>
>>
>> Pragmatism is short-term, whim based.
>>
>> Priciples, correctly done, are self-corrective. Pragmatism leads, as we
>> see
>> in current society, the heaping on of more and more "corrective action"
>> in
>> the form of "vicious cycles". (Think" "Throw more money at the problem".)
>
> well, pragmatism is not necessarily bad, and is NOT "whim based"

It's not? What is your definition of "whim"?


>
> Pragmastism isn't really part of the problem. Short-sighted goals and
> selfishness labelled as pragmatism is.

What's wrong with selfishness? Selfishness is not necessarily short-term
based. Done right it's long-term.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

>> well, pragmatism is not necessarily bad, and is NOT "whim based"
>
> It's not? What is your definition of "whim"?

Pragmatism: a practical approach to problems and affairs.

Whim: A sudden turn or start of the mind. NOTION, FANCY

It's hard for me to reconcile "practical" with "whim", they aren't
even close.

> >
> > Pragmastism isn't really part of the problem. Short-sighted goals and
> > selfishness labelled as pragmatism is.
>
> What's wrong with selfishness? Selfishness is not necessarily short-term
> based. Done right it's long-term.

Selfishness that only gives priority to oneself is rarely beneficial to others
in the short-term or the long-term.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[kontiki]

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
> People who want to play word games worthy only of 10 year olds
> tend not to be well versed on much of anything...
>

Sounds like Al Gore.

[M[_1_]]

On May 18, 4:21 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Nothing more than anecdotal. The person who told me about the airport
> being dry said that there are only two refineries in the USA that still
> make avgas. I haven't tried to confirm that, but given the low volume I
> would not find this surprising.
>
> Matt

Here's the volume:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/a403600001m.htm

It's a tiny fraction of overall gasoline production, and falling
further.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>"Luke Skywalker" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> On May 16, 8:18 am, "Matt Barrow" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The fact is that U.S. refining capacity has been growing at about 1% a
>>> year
>>> for the past decade - the equivalent of adding a mid-size refinery every
>>> year. Since 1996, U.S. refiners have expanded capacity by more than 2
>>> million barrels a day This is a remarkable achievement in the face of
>>> environmental mandates setting new ethanol usage and low-sulfur
>>> requirements.
>>>
>>> But the last major refinery built in the U.S. was in Garyville, La., in
>>> 1976
>>> and the ones we have are getting older, no matter how well they're
>>> maintained.
>>
>> I dont know about the rest of the country but I do know about
>> Louisiana. Right now you cannot go to a refinery complex on the
>> Southern Louisiana area and not see them doing MASSIVE expansion,
>> doubling sometimes tripling the refinery complex. From Norco/Avondale/
>> St. Rose near MSY (just south of it) up the river to L38 (Gonzalez)
>> where Sorento/Giesimer/Fina etc all the way to Baton Rouge (Port
>> Allen) the bulldozers and welders are working as we speak.
>
>Doing what?
>
>You say "expansion", but what are they expanding?

Capacity.

>Now, if you'd read back to the original article, you'd find some interesting
>data that you happened to snip.

Nothing in the original article was valid. Why bother re-reading it.

>> You mention Garyville. That is the Marathon Garyville refinery near
>> REserve airport. In the last year it has doubled its size and now is
>> set for at least a doubling of that size. They are 'as we speak"
>> clearing the old sugar cane fields for new "smokestacks". The
>> Chocktow is also expanding.
>
>"Expanding" what? Capacity? How much capacity expansion? (Original vs new).

Typically when any one refinery has been expanded, they go for enough
added capacity to provide whatever increase is needed plus enough to
shutdown at least one other refinery. That is why for decades now there
have been no "new" refineries built, but there has been a steady increase
in capacity and a dramatic decrease in the number of refineries.

>> the "we have not built a new refinery since XXXX" sounds good but is
>> misleading.
>
>Only if we can keep updating 1970's technology.

An absurd statement. Why would anyone want to do that, and since
when is anyone trying to do that. 1970's technology is what they
are eliminating as fast as they can.

>There's no shortage of capacity (according to our resident "experts"), so
>what are we worried about. If the price goes to $4.00 for Mogas and $5.50
>for avgas, it's just the oil companies ripping us off.

Given that they can expand refinery capacity at will, what else would you
want to call it?

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Floyd L. Davidson]

kontiki > wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> People who want to play word games worthy only of 10
>> year olds
>> tend not to be well versed on much of anything...
>
>Sounds like Al Gore.

I haven't seen where Gore plays word games. But on the
other hand I do recall how his words too were twisted by
opponents that it turns out now clearly are mental
midgets.

"Al Gore invented the Internet" is of course nothing
Gore claimed. People who did invent the Internet (Bob
Kahn and Vinton Cerf) supported what Al Gore's
statements. GW Bush's crew didn't, and now look where
we are...

If only Gore had been elected President! (The coming
transition to Hillary Clinton would have been so much
more pleasant that what it will be this way.)

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Luke Skywalker]

On May 19, 3:22 pm, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
> "Luke Skywalker" > wrote in message


I am not a refinery expert nor do I play one on TV...but what I do
know is that they are massivly increasing the acreage of these
facilities and the history is when they do that...the old facilities
keep right on going.

is it 70's technology? I dont know. The Nimitz and the Ronald Reagan
"Look" alot a like but the technology on The Nimitz when she was built
isnt the technology that they put on The Ronald Reagan.

Robert

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>> People who want to play word games worthy only of 10 year olds
>> tend not to be well versed on much of anything...
>>
>
> Sounds like Al Gore.

Sounds like Floyd with his "exploratory well" and equating that to "proven
reserves".

I guess he thinks all those seismologists (and the rest) should pack up and
go home.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Luke Skywalker" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 19, 3:22 pm, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
>> "Luke Skywalker" > wrote in message
>
>
> I am not a refinery expert nor do I play one on TV...but what I do
> know is that they are massivly increasing the acreage of these
> facilities and the history is when they do that...the old facilities
> keep right on going.

Well, when you find out what going onto that acreage, we can discuss. But
note, outside of new ruling by EPA, it's not likely to be direct capacity.
Possibly, storage, transport, and maybe even capacity. IAC, don't make wild
ass assumptions like the media or academics.

>
> is it 70's technology? I dont know. The Nimitz and the Ronald Reagan
> "Look" alot a like but the technology on The Nimitz when she was built
> isnt the technology that they put on The Ronald Reagan.

Quite. You just answered my point. But as marvelous a machine as the USS
Reagan is, we're not going to be a one-carrier Navy.

Go back to the IBD article and re-read the part about capacity growing
DESPITE having lost so much in PHYSICAL ASSETS.

The issue that so many want to evade is that our refining infrastructure is
running near 100 percent of capacity. Our demand is out-stripping that
capacity.

Here's an analogy: You have a nice freeway, but a few years later it's
running bumper-to-bumper, 24/7. If you want to add a couple lanes, you have
to shut down the freeway and divert traffic.

Now, imagine what happens when the need to repair a stretch for fill in
potholes.

Now imagine there's a wreck and all the bozos (congress) are rubber-necking.

Imagine, too, that all of our cars are 1976 and older, but we did keep them
up pretty well. We tuned them up, and put new seat covers in and a new CD
player. Yet, we can't put it in the garage for a lengthy time to get a
complete overhaul.

[[email protected]]

On May 20, 2:22 pm, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
> "kontiki" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
> >> People who want to play word games worthy only of 10 year olds
> >> tend not to be well versed on much of anything...
>
> > Sounds like Al Gore.
>
> Sounds like Floyd with his "exploratory well" and equating that to "proven
> reserves".
>
> I guess he thinks all those seismologists (and the rest) should pack up and
> go home.

I think Matt has hit on something. It is possible that Floyd is a tree
hugger dressed up as a pilot. Hey Floyd, since this is the
rec.aviation.owning do ya care to tell us the N number of your plane?

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
>> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>>
>>> People who want to play word games worthy only of 10 year olds
>>> tend not to be well versed on much of anything...
>>>
>>
>> Sounds like Al Gore.
>
>Sounds like Floyd with his "exploratory well" and equating that to "proven
>reserves".
>
>I guess he thinks all those seismologists (and the rest) should pack up and
>go home.

So Matt... when are you going to cite a credible URL
which lists proven reserves in ANWR?

You've had a good bit of time to demonstrate that you
know something, and haven't.

That is because of course there are *no* proven reserves in
ANWR.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Floyd L. Davidson]

" > wrote:
>On May 20, 2:22 pm, "Matt Barrow" >
>wrote:
>> "kontiki" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>> >> People who want to play word games worthy only of 10 year olds
>> >> tend not to be well versed on much of anything...
>>
>> > Sounds like Al Gore.
>>
>> Sounds like Floyd with his "exploratory well" and equating that to "proven
>> reserves".
>>
>> I guess he thinks all those seismologists (and the rest) should pack up and
>> go home.
>
>I think Matt has hit on something. It is possible that Floyd is a tree
>hugger dressed up as a pilot. Hey Floyd, since this is the
>rec.aviation.owning do ya care to tell us the N number of your plane?

What logical connection is there between owning an
airplane and understanding what proven reserves are?

If Matt owns an airplane, will that mean his lack of logic
is acceptable on any particular topic?

If you had a valid point, would you even know about it?

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[kontiki]

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

>
> That is because of course there are *no* proven reserves in
> ANWR.
>

If there was in internet in the 1400's you would be posting
that Columbus will absolutely fall off the edge of the earth
and die if he attempts to sail out that far.

You are posting here because you are getting bored with
playing with your own genatilia.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

kontiki > wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> That is because of course there are *no* proven
>> reserves in
>> ANWR.
>>
>
>If there was in internet in the 1400's you would be posting
>that Columbus will absolutely fall off the edge of the earth
>and die if he attempts to sail out that far.
>
>You are posting here because you are getting bored with
>playing with your own genatilia.

Lets see now... we have a disagreement, and I post all
sorts of facts and figures, along with cites to credible
sources for that data. You make posts like the above.

I may know a good bit about the facts and figures for
ANWR, but you know a good bit about playing with
genatilia.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>>
>> That is because of course there are *no* proven reserves in
>> ANWR.
>>
>
> If there was in internet in the 1400's you would be posting
> that Columbus will absolutely fall off the edge of the earth
> and die if he attempts to sail out that far.

He's one of those who claim it's never been PROVEN that the Earth, in fact,
revolves around the Sun. The mindset, and the illogic, is all the same.

And, as I mentioned in a previous post, in 1900 the US had PROVEN reserves
of less than one billion barrels.

>
> You are posting here because you are getting bored with
> playing with your own genatilia.

He has to because no one else will.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 20, 2:22 pm, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
>> "kontiki" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>> >> People who want to play word games worthy only of 10 year olds
>> >> tend not to be well versed on much of anything...
>>
>> > Sounds like Al Gore.
>>
>> Sounds like Floyd with his "exploratory well" and equating that to
>> "proven
>> reserves".
>>
>> I guess he thinks all those seismologists (and the rest) should pack up
>> and
>> go home.
>
> I think Matt has hit on something. It is possible that Floyd is a tree
> hugger dressed up as a pilot.

I think we can all name some tree huggers that are pilots.

If Floyd is who I think he is, he's something of a Usenet troll who likes to
play cynical expert on a lot of subjects. (See other post about proving that
the Earth revolves around the Sun). His ignorance and irrationality are text
book cases.

> Hey Floyd, since this is the
> rec.aviation.owning do ya care to tell us the N number of your plane?

There's a lot of people in here are not owners, but renters, potential
owners, and some that are no longer active, but they have the interest and
curiosity.

Floyd is, I believe, just an Usenet fruitcake.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>"kontiki" > wrote:
>> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>>
>>> That is because of course there are *no* proven reserves in
>>> ANWR.
....

>He's one of those who claim it's never been PROVEN that the Earth, in fact,
>revolves around the Sun. The mindset, and the illogic, is all the same.

Still making up insults because you can't get past the fact that
what I posted originally was *precisely* correct, and everything
in from your article was shown to be bull**** right from the start...

What's that matter kid, can't you come up with *anything* to support
the **** you post?

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>If Floyd is who I think he is, he's something of a Usenet troll who likes to

I'm just the one who (most recently, as there have been
others in the past) showed you up to be a complete
phony. You have no facts and can do nothing but post
lies to start with and insults when they are challenged.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[[email protected]]

I have been somewhat following this discussion and as to the "proven
reserve" why would anyone putting out the money for what exploration
has been done want to freely share this with their competitors and a
bunch of so called experts that could not count their family jewls
twice and come up with the same answer. Oops we forgot to measure the
output, Duh, if you want to know put your money where your mouth is.
As far as the government experts how could they possibly know how
much oil is in Alaska when all the dipsticks are in Washington DC.

Lyn Wagner
N2759P

[Floyd L. Davidson]

wrote:
>I have been somewhat following this discussion and as to the "proven
>reserve" why would anyone putting out the money for what exploration
>has been done want to freely share this with their competitors and a
>bunch of so called experts that could not count their family jewls
>twice and come up with the same answer. Oops we forgot to measure the
>output, Duh, if you want to know put your money where your mouth is.

If an oil company wants to attract investors it has to
demonstrate that it actually does have a future in oil
production. That is to say, the investors want to see
proven reserves, and the more the better.

But what you suggest is *very* true of data from seismic
work and other collection/analysis by geologists, which
is used to suggest where exploration wells should be
drilled; however, all of that is kept secret so that a
company can bid on leases that allow them to drill.

Once they are at the drilling stage there are very few
instances where secrecy is either useful or even
allowed. Nobody drilling on a State lease from Alaska
is able to keep the well data secret. The only time it
would be useful is when no other leases have been sold
in a particular area. Hence one shot wildcat
operations, generally not on State land, are the kind
that might be kept secret.

Note that this discussion was about proven reserves in
the 1002 area of ANWR. To date there has been exactly
one well drilled (KPC-1, by Chevron in 1985, on land
owned by the village of Kaktovik) in ANWR. Because they
knew they would be the only ones allowed to drill a
well, they have kept the data secret. Speculation is
that given Chevron's absolute disinterest in ANWR since,
that it must have been a dry hole.

> As far as the government experts how could they possibly know how
>much oil is in Alaska when all the dipsticks are in Washington DC.

Dead on.

The USGS reports and the department of the Interior's
various manipulations have all been extremely suspect.

The shift in the USGS 1988 and 1998 reports on ANWR,
from projecting oil would be in the eastern section to
claiming it will be in the western section, is just a
little too convenient for political purposes. In the
1980's it was not clear what the effects of oil
pipelines and road stretching all the way to the eastern
edge of ANWR would be, and saying the oil was in the
eastern end made it easy to justify drilling anywhere.
But by the 1990's that was environmental suicide!
Saying the oil will all be right on the western edge,
causing the least possible impact, is good politics in
terms of getting a foot in the door.

Take the USGS reports with a grain of salt. Just then
be aware that otherwise there simply is *no* indication
of *any* oil in ANWR (never mind any proven reserves!).

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>I have been somewhat following this discussion and as to the "proven
> reserve" why would anyone putting out the money for what exploration
> has been done want to freely share this with their competitors and a
> bunch of so called experts that could not count their family jewls
> twice and come up with the same answer.

Are you familiar with leases?

> Oops we forgot to measure the
> output, Duh, if you want to know put your money where your mouth is.
> As far as the government experts how could they possibly know how
> much oil is in Alaska when all the dipsticks are in Washington DC.

Are you familiar with "attracting capital" and how said capital is used for
drilling/exploration?

MOF, are you familiar with anything other than lame, elementary school
humor?

[[email protected]]

On May 21, 1:58 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> " > wrote:
> >On May 20, 2:22 pm, "Matt Barrow" >
> >wrote:
> >> "kontiki" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
> >> >> People who want to play word games worthy only of 10 year olds
> >> >> tend not to be well versed on much of anything...
>
> >> > Sounds like Al Gore.
>
> >> Sounds like Floyd with his "exploratory well" and equating that to "proven
> >> reserves".
>
> >> I guess he thinks all those seismologists (and the rest) should pack up and
> >> go home.
>
> >I think Matt has hit on something. It is possible that Floyd is a tree
> >hugger dressed up as a pilot. Hey Floyd, since this is the
> >rec.aviation.owning do ya care to tell us the N number of your plane?
>
> What logical connection is there between owning an
> airplane and understanding what proven reserves are?
>
> If Matt owns an airplane, will that mean his lack of logic
> is acceptable on any particular topic?
>
> If you had a valid point, would you even know about it?
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You bet...... Now whine on cause the Oil companies are gonna shove the
drilling right up your ,,well you know.


;-)

[Floyd L. Davidson]

" > wrote:
>On May 21, 1:58 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>> " > wrote:
>>
>> If you had a valid point, would you even know about it?
>>

>You bet...... Now whine on cause the Oil companies are gonna shove the
>drilling right up your ,,well you know.
>
>;-)

I won the bet, that you don't have a valid point.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 21, 1:58 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>> " > wrote:
>> >On May 20, 2:22 pm, "Matt Barrow" >
>> >wrote:
>> >> "kontiki" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> > Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>> >> >> People who want to play word games worthy only of 10 year olds
>> >> >> tend not to be well versed on much of anything...
>>
>> >> > Sounds like Al Gore.
>>
>> >> Sounds like Floyd with his "exploratory well" and equating that to
>> >> "proven
>> >> reserves".
>>
>> >> I guess he thinks all those seismologists (and the rest) should pack
>> >> up and
>> >> go home.
>>
>> >I think Matt has hit on something. It is possible that Floyd is a tree
>> >hugger dressed up as a pilot. Hey Floyd, since this is the
>> >rec.aviation.owning do ya care to tell us the N number of your plane?
>>
>> What logical connection is there between owning an
>> airplane and understanding what proven reserves are?
>>
>> If Matt owns an airplane, will that mean his lack of logic
>> is acceptable on any particular topic?
>>
>> If you had a valid point, would you even know about it?
>>
>> --
>> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
>> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) - Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You bet...... Now whine on cause the Oil companies are gonna shove the
> drilling right up your ,,well you know.
>
>
> ;-)

You've noticed Floyd's weaseling, huh? :~)

[[email protected]]

On May 21, 1:58 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> " > wrote:
> >On May 20, 2:22 pm, "Matt Barrow" >
> >wrote:
> >> "kontiki" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
> >> >> People who want to play word games worthy only of 10 year olds
> >> >> tend not to be well versed on much of anything...
>
> >> > Sounds like Al Gore.
>
> >> Sounds like Floyd with his "exploratory well" and equating that to "proven
> >> reserves".
>
> >> I guess he thinks all those seismologists (and the rest) should pack up and
> >> go home.
>
> >I think Matt has hit on something. It is possible that Floyd is a tree
> >hugger dressed up as a pilot. Hey Floyd, since this is the
> >rec.aviation.owning do ya care to tell us the N number of your plane?
>
> What logical connection is there between owning an
> airplane and understanding what proven reserves are?
>
> If Matt owns an airplane, will that mean his lack of logic
> is acceptable on any particular topic?
>
> If you had a valid point, would you even know about it?
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You bet...... Now whine on cause the Oil companies are gonna shove the
drilling right up your ,,well you know.


;-)

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

>
> You've noticed Floyd's weaseling, huh? :~)

I haven't seen him doing anything but posting solid information.

You, on the other hand, have done nothing but blow hot air.

....as usual.

--
Dan

"Almost all the matter that came out of the Big Bang was two specific sorts;
hydrogen, and stupidity."

-Robert Carnegie in talk.origins