Argument against high gas prices

[[email protected]]

If you follow this link: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/a103600001m.htm

You will see that the gas deliveries in Mar 2007 are lower than they
were in Mar 1984. This is despite the claims by oil companies that
they have been constantly expanding their refining capacity, and the
reason for the over $3.00 a gallon pricing is due to refining
capacity. Sorry, but I just don't see the demand being much higher
now than it was in the early 80's from this data! How can there be a
refinery shortage if the capacity has been increasing, but deliveries
are flat? Add to that the fact that crude oil is $10 a barrel less
this year than it was last year, and you can figure that the oil
companies are going to report huge profits this year...

I think the truth is that the gasoline futures market is being
manipulated to maximize profits. Why else would the prices of av-gas
rise so much when demand has dropped by nearly 50% since 2000? Why
would auto-gas prices rise rapidly, when demand is flat?

The table does not yet show the auto-gas deliveries for April, May, or
June 2007. That data should be interesting given the sharp rise in
prices that occured in that time period. I wonder if demand has
dropped as a result of prices going up.

Dean

[gatt]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> If you follow this link:
> http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/a103600001m.htm
>
> You will see that the gas deliveries in Mar 2007 are lower than they
> were in Mar 1984. This is despite the claims by oil companies that
> they have been constantly expanding their refining capacity, and the
> reason for the over $3.00 a gallon pricing is due to refining
> capacity.


If you think about how the various scams work, consider that every year
during the holidays the price goes up because the demand goes up, and the
industry says it has to raise the prices to keep up with the demand.

So they KNOW there's going to be an increase in demand Memorial Day and
Labor Day weekend year after year after year...but there's always a supply
shortage during those weekends so prices rise.

It would be far less detrimental to the American economy if the geniuses
that run the oil companies determined in FEBRUARY that there would be an
upturn in sales on Memorial Day weekend, and had the product ready for the
market in sufficient quantity to match that demand.

Not so much money in that, though. So the oil companies continue to make
record quarterly profits (record in terms of the entire history of human
civilization, quarter after quarter), but somehow they're never prepared to
increase production and supply in time to prevent America from being bent
over at the pump every summer holiday.

>Add to that the fact that crude oil is $10 a barrel less this year than it
>was last year, and you can figure that the oil
> companies are going to report huge profits this year...

Guys who bring this up on or.politics are usually called socialists,
communists, or America-hating lieberals, and the advice they're given is to
invest in XOM. To me, that's tantamount to investing in organized crime.
At some point we're either going to force them to put the national interest
over record oil prices, or pull a Chavez and nationalize it. I'm not being
a big-government socialist when I say that the federal bureaucracy could run
the oil industry at lower user cost. (Not necessarily more efficiently,
but in ways that are less damaging to the US economy, transportation
industries, etc.)


-c

[kontiki]

gatt wrote:
> Guys who bring this up on or.politics are usually called socialists,
> communists, or America-hating lieberals, and the advice they're given is to
> invest in XOM. To me, that's tantamount to investing in organized crime.
> At some point we're either going to force them to put the national interest
> over record oil prices, or pull a Chavez and nationalize it. I'm not being
> a big-government socialist when I say that the federal bureaucracy could run
> the oil industry at lower user cost. (Not necessarily more efficiently,
> but in ways that are less damaging to the US economy, transportation
> industries, etc.)
>

The very best way to lower prices on anything is to open up
the marketplace... encourage entrepeneurs to enter the market.
Provide incentives to modernize/increase efficiency and expand
and modernize production and manufacturing facilities. Lower
the barriers (regulation/red tape) that prevent smaller and
more agressive youg companies to establish themselves.

This philosophy is not popular in today's environment.
The media is not interested in talking honestly about this
subject... only vilifying "big oil"... Hillary talking about
taxing more "big oil" profits... how evil they are and how
they should be stopped/shut down/punished. All of this is
music to the ears of envrironmentalist groups that are really
anti-capitalist groups in disguise. Meanwhile nothing is done.

Since there is no leadership in Washington DC this country
wallows around powerless to foreign oil interests while
oil conmpanies take advantage of the situation (who wouldn't?).
When a country is led by 500 some-odd dumbasses all living
together in on city on the Potomac River what do expect would happen?

[gatt]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...


> This philosophy is not popular in today's environment. The media is not
> interested in talking honestly about this
> subject... only vilifying "big oil"...

I think the media thinks they're talking honestly, sort of the way they talk
about killer bees, bigfoot, Alar, plane crashes, etc.

>All of this is music to the ears of envrironmentalist groups that are
>really anti-capitalist groups in disguise.

Some are, some aren't. I've met very many well-organized,
non-anti-capitalist environmentalists. Out west it comes with the turf; you
can be one without being the other. I've flown photo missions for
environmentalist groups that weren't anti-capitalist, although there's
certainly no shortage of clueless anarchist tagalongs who parasitically
attach themselves to whatever progress somebody tries to make and then
verbally attack anybody who says they're out of line.

It's weirder than that out here, though, too. A friend of mine used to work
for a spook organization hired by local timber companies to scare or rough
up protestors, or to pretend to be a protestor by going to a trial or
something and causing chaos. As long as they look like punks, the media
reports 'em as enviros or ecoterrorists. He quit doing it because his
conscience got to him, but even then he simply refused to talk about some of
the stuff he says he did and that they still do.

> When a country is led by 500 some-odd dumbasses all living together in on
> city on the Potomac River what do expect would happen?

LOL! Yeah, I agree!

-c

[Blueskies]

"kontiki" > wrote in message ...
>
> The very best way to lower prices on anything is to open up
> the marketplace... encourage entrepeneurs to enter the market.
> Provide incentives to modernize/increase efficiency and expand
> and modernize production and manufacturing facilities. Lower
> the barriers (regulation/red tape) that prevent smaller and
> more agressive youg companies to establish themselves.
>

That will never happen with everyong drinking 'fuel' from the same pipe...

[[email protected]]

On Jun 5, 3:49 pm, "gatt" > wrote:
I'm not being
> a big-government socialist when I say that the federal bureaucracy could run
> the oil industry at lower user cost. (Not necessarily more efficiently,
> but in ways that are less damaging to the US economy, transportation
> industries, etc.)
>
> -c

JEEEEEEEPPPPPERS!!!
Don't EVER say that out loud!
You've seen how well the feds have run aviation lately, and then say
that they might run oil companies at a lower cost???
What's in your water? (OK, insert half a smiley here....)
We know how thick the paperwork and regs books are just to fly a
little ol' plane from point A to point B. I can't imaigine how bad
the oil business would be if the job-justifying feds started running
it.
jeez...

[M[_1_]]

On Jun 5, 2:31 pm, wrote:
>
> I think the truth is that the gasoline futures market is being
> manipulated to maximize profits. Why else would the prices of av-gas
> rise so much when demand has dropped by nearly 50% since 2000? Why
> would auto-gas prices rise rapidly, when demand is flat?
>

I agree with you that high gasoline price maximizes oil company
profit. However as a pilot you can easily hedge on that by buying oil
company stock, or invest in mutual funds that're specialized in the
oil sector. All major oil companies are public companies. I'm quite
certain that I made far more from the oil companies than what I paid
extra for the fuel, and I only have a small part of my 401k in the
energy sector.

In terms of 100LL avgas, there's something else in play here. Due to
the lead content requiring a separate infrastructure to transport and
distribute the fuel, a reduction of 100LL consumption will result in a
bigger price gap between 100LL and autogas, due to the largely fixed
cost of 100LL infrastructure needing to be spread among a smaller
overall sales. If the 100LL consumption dropped to 50% of today's
level (it probably won't be many years away), don't be surprised that
100LL costs more than $2/gallon over the autogas price.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 5, 10:34 pm, M > wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2:31 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think the truth is that the gasoline futures market is being
> > manipulated to maximize profits. Why else would the prices of av-gas
> > rise so much when demand has dropped by nearly 50% since 2000? Why
> > would auto-gas prices rise rapidly, when demand is flat?
>
> I agree with you that high gasoline price maximizes oil company
> profit. However as a pilot you can easily hedge on that by buying oil
> company stock, or invest in mutual funds that're specialized in the
> oil sector. All major oil companies are public companies. I'm quite
> certain that I made far more from the oil companies than what I paid
> extra for the fuel, and I only have a small part of my 401k in the
> energy sector.
>
> In terms of 100LL avgas, there's something else in play here. Due to
> the lead content requiring a separate infrastructure to transport and
> distribute the fuel, a reduction of 100LL consumption will result in a
> bigger price gap between 100LL and autogas, due to the largely fixed
> cost of 100LL infrastructure needing to be spread among a smaller
> overall sales. If the 100LL consumption dropped to 50% of today's
> level (it probably won't be many years away), don't be surprised that
> 100LL costs more than $2/gallon over the autogas price.

Really? Got a $100K I can have to invest in the oil companies? I
don't have it myself, so your suggestion does me no good.

[kontiki]

Blueskies wrote:
> "kontiki" > wrote in message ...
>
>>The very best way to lower prices on anything is to open up
>>the marketplace... encourage entrepeneurs to enter the market.
>>Provide incentives to modernize/increase efficiency and expand
>>and modernize production and manufacturing facilities. Lower
>>the barriers (regulation/red tape) that prevent smaller and
>>more agressive youg companies to establish themselves.
>>
>
>
> That will never happen with everyong drinking 'fuel' from the same pipe...
>
>
>
>

Think outsside the box. Find more pipes.

[kontiki]

wrote:

>
>
> Really? Got a $100K I can have to invest in the oil companies? I
> don't have it myself, so your suggestion does me no good.
>

You don't need $100k in order to be an investor you doofus. Sign up
for a Schwab/Etrade/Scottrade account for as littel as $500.

Sheesh... the education system is this country is as corrupt
as the government. Oh yeah... schools are run by the government.

[kontiki]

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> And don't forget that political BS promoting ethanol blends. Save the planet,
> higher prices and lower gas mileage.
>

yeah.. government logic... force the use of a product because it
sounds good to people... an might get you re-elected. Oooops ...
now we discover that burning ethanol can produce some rather ugly
and dangerous by products.

[dave]

"gatt" > wrote in message > Guys who bring
this up on or.politics are usually called socialists,
> communists, or America-hating lieberals, and the advice they're given is
> to invest in XOM. To me, that's tantamount to investing in organized
> crime. At some point we're either going to force them to put the national
> interest over record oil prices, or pull a Chavez and nationalize it.
> I'm not being a big-government socialist when I say that the federal
> bureaucracy could run the oil industry at lower user cost. (Not
> necessarily more efficiently, but in ways that are less damaging to the US
> economy, transportation industries, etc.)


If the market was truly working, then the oil companies would be increasing
capacity
before any predicted shortage due to summer/winter blends or recurirng
spikes in demand.
This way they would try to to get a competitive advantge over one another,
and have more gas on hand to sell at the higher price. Eventually the
recurring, predictable shortage would go away.

The problem is collusion and cartels. This is illegal, and not the way a
free market is supposed to work.
In my company's industry, because of competition, we can't pass on every
price increase from our suppliers straight to our customers. Our competitors
would take advantage.

Dave

[Cubdriver]

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:31:23 -0700, wrote:

>How can there be a
>refinery shortage if the capacity has been increasing, but deliveries
>are flat?

How many refineries have been built in your county in the past thirty
years? None, right?

The refineries aren't where the demand is. Indeed, some of the
refineries are in Europe, especially in Holland. Whereas Europe used
to send us gasoline, now they need it themselves.

Other refineries are in the Caribbean. Did you factor those into your
"flat" deliveries?

U.S.-based refineries are only a part of the picture.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

[Cubdriver]

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:56:52 -0700, wrote:

>You've seen how well the feds have run aviation lately,

Homeland Security.

Mail.

Welfare.

Medicare.

Sometimes it seems that the only thing the government does well is
invading countries, though occupying them seems beyond its capacity
also.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

[Cubdriver]

On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 07:05:28 -0700, "dave"
> wrote:

>If the market was truly working, then the oil companies would be increasing
>capacity

How can they do that if you won't allow a refinery to be built in your
neighborhood?

Someone said 20 years; it's actually 30 since a refinery was built in
the U.S. The only capacity increases since the late 1970s have been in
adding to existing refineries.

Now go figure how much the population has increased in 30 years, and
how much more each American drives today than 30 years ago.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

[[email protected]]

On Jun 6, 4:07 am, kontiki > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Really? Got a $100K I can have to invest in the oil companies? I
> > don't have it myself, so your suggestion does me no good.
>
> You don't need $100k in order to be an investor you doofus. Sign up
> for a Schwab/Etrade/Scottrade account for as littel as $500.
>
> Sheesh... the education system is this country is as corrupt
> as the government. Oh yeah... schools are run by the government.

Oooh, so if I invest a whole $500 in oil, I might make what, $500 if I
am lucky? Wow, big deal...

It takes money to make money in the stock market. If you don't
already have it, you have nothing to leverage to make any real money.
Talk about needing an education! By the way, I have a B.S.E.E. and
have taken economics courses on the time value of money, so I
understand that anything less than $100K invested in oil isn't going
to make enough money to really be worth crowing about. With the cost
of living rising as fast as it is, you need to be making at least 10%
on your money, and $100K will only earn about $10K annually at that
rate of return. Housing, transportation and medical are the biggest
rising cost factors and they aren't included in the consumer price
index, specifically so that the government can claim low inflation!

Is $500 big money to you?

[kontiki]

wrote:
>
>
> Oooh, so if I invest a whole $500 in oil, I might make what, $500 if I
> am lucky? Wow, big deal...
>

Exactly. Do you expect them to just start paying you money while until
you save enough beer money to buy some shares? Sheesh go collect a
welfare check.

> It takes money to make money in the stock market.

That's the general idea.

> If you don't
> already have it, you have nothing to leverage to make any real money.

Really? Wow I didn't know that!

> Talk about needing an education! By the way, I have a B.S.E.E. and
> have taken economics courses on the time value of money, so I
> understand that anything less than $100K invested in oil isn't going
> to make enough money to really be worth crowing about. With the cost
> of living rising as fast as it is, you need to be making at least 10%
> on your money, and $100K will only earn about $10K annually at that
> rate of return. Housing, transportation and medical are the biggest
> rising cost factors and they aren't included in the consumer price
> index, specifically so that the government can claim low inflation!
>
> Is $500 big money to you?
>

You are full of crap dude. I started with about $7K that I rolled over
from a 401K account from a previous job. I eventually rolled it into
a Roth and made modest contributions and investments over a period of
the last 7 years. Now the balance is over $80K and I didn't have to
break a sweat. And yes, I've taken the time to learn about investing
and researched stocks on my own. I've bought and sold shares in oil
companies over that time and made money. Its not rocket science.

You have a loser attitude.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 6, 9:39 am, kontiki > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Oooh, so if I invest a whole $500 in oil, I might make what, $500 if I
> > am lucky? Wow, big deal...
>
> Exactly. Do you expect them to just start paying you money while until
> you save enough beer money to buy some shares? Sheesh go collect a
> welfare check.
>
> > It takes money to make money in the stock market.
>
> That's the general idea.
>
> > If you don't
> > already have it, you have nothing to leverage to make any real money.
>
> Really? Wow I didn't know that!
>
> > Talk about needing an education! By the way, I have a B.S.E.E. and
> > have taken economics courses on the time value of money, so I
> > understand that anything less than $100K invested in oil isn't going
> > to make enough money to really be worth crowing about. With the cost
> > of living rising as fast as it is, you need to be making at least 10%
> > on your money, and $100K will only earn about $10K annually at that
> > rate of return. Housing, transportation and medical are the biggest
> > rising cost factors and they aren't included in the consumer price
> > index, specifically so that the government can claim low inflation!
>
> > Is $500 big money to you?
>
> You are full of crap dude. I started with about $7K that I rolled over
> from a 401K account from a previous job. I eventually rolled it into
> a Roth and made modest contributions and investments over a period of
> the last 7 years. Now the balance is over $80K and I didn't have to
> break a sweat. And yes, I've taken the time to learn about investing
> and researched stocks on my own. I've bought and sold shares in oil
> companies over that time and made money. Its not rocket science.
>
> You have a loser attitude.

You have an arrogant attitude. I have more in my 401K than you do,
but that's not the point. I have a legitimate right to gripe about
over-inflated gas prices which are clearly a result of poorly managed
supply (not increasing demand). Investing money in the industry which
I don't have at my disposal (and no, 401K funds typically don't allow
you to target one or two stocks) as a way of saying "if you can't beat
them, join them" is BS. Also, trying to insult my education is
juvenile. You are what, 25? 28? You act like 17.

Dean

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> If you follow this link:
> http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/a103600001m.htm
>
> You will see that the gas deliveries in Mar 2007 are lower than they
> were in Mar 1984. This is despite the claims by oil companies that
> they have been constantly expanding their refining capacity, and the
> reason for the over $3.00 a gallon pricing is due to refining
> capacity. Sorry, but I just don't see the demand being much higher
> now than it was in the early 80's from this data!

How much was China and India buying 23 years ago?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> gatt wrote:
>> Guys who bring this up on or.politics are usually called socialists,
>> communists, or America-hating lieberals, and the advice they're given is
>> to invest in XOM. To me, that's tantamount to investing in organized
>> crime. At some point we're either going to force them to put the national
>> interest over record oil prices, or pull a Chavez and nationalize it.
>> I'm not being a big-government socialist when I say that the federal
>> bureaucracy could run the oil industry at lower user cost. (Not
>> necessarily more efficiently, but in ways that are less damaging to the
>> US economy, transportation industries, etc.)
>>
>
> The very best way to lower prices on anything is to open up
> the marketplace... encourage entrepeneurs to enter the market.

Ummm...SUPPLY?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Blueskies wrote:
>> "kontiki" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>The very best way to lower prices on anything is to open up
>>>the marketplace... encourage entrepeneurs to enter the market.
>>>Provide incentives to modernize/increase efficiency and expand
>>>and modernize production and manufacturing facilities. Lower
>>>the barriers (regulation/red tape) that prevent smaller and
>>>more agressive youg companies to establish themselves.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That will never happen with everyong drinking 'fuel' from the same
>> pipe...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Think outsside the box. Find more pipes.

Find more pools to stick the pipes into.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Cubdriver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:56:52 -0700, wrote:
>
>>You've seen how well the feds have run aviation lately,
>
> Homeland Security.
>
> Mail.
>
> Welfare.
>
> Medicare.

Coe out west and add "water" to that list.

>
> Sometimes it seems that the only thing the government does well is
> invading countries, though occupying them seems beyond its capacity
> also.

That's their #1 job. They did pretty good in the past before they became
"sensitive".

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Really? Got a $100K I can have to invest in the oil companies? I
>> don't have it myself, so your suggestion does me no good.
>>
>
> You don't need $100k in order to be an investor you doofus. Sign up
> for a Schwab/Etrade/Scottrade account for as littel as $500.
>
> Sheesh... the education system is this country is as corrupt
> as the government. Oh yeah... schools are run by the government.

One follows the other.

If you loook back to the 1840's and Thomas Mann, you find that was precisely
the objective.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 6, 4:07 am, kontiki > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Really? Got a $100K I can have to invest in the oil companies? I
>> > don't have it myself, so your suggestion does me no good.
>>
>> You don't need $100k in order to be an investor you doofus. Sign up
>> for a Schwab/Etrade/Scottrade account for as littel as $500.
>>
>> Sheesh... the education system is this country is as corrupt
>> as the government. Oh yeah... schools are run by the government.
>
> Oooh, so if I invest a whole $500 in oil, I might make what, $500 if I
> am lucky? Wow, big deal...

Just because you're "tapped"... (I could add some more acerbic adjectives to
describe childish envy...)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Oooh, so if I invest a whole $500 in oil, I might make what, $500 if I
>> am lucky? Wow, big deal...
>>
>
> Exactly. Do you expect them to just start paying you money while until
> you save enough beer money to buy some shares? Sheesh go collect a
> welfare check.
>
>> It takes money to make money in the stock market.
>
> That's the general idea.
>
>> If you don't
>> already have it, you have nothing to leverage to make any real money.
>
> Really? Wow I didn't know that!

The best leverage is SMART'S.

Lynn Tilton, whose company, Patriarch Partners, just bought MD Helicopters a
couple years ago, was a single Mom ten years ago, and is now worth over $1
BILLION from stock investments.

There's a number of people doing stock analysis who made their fortunes
starting with just a few hundreds. Before my wife "retired" from the stock
brokerage business to run OUR business, she knew, personally, dozens of
self-made millionaires.

What do they have that Dean hasn't got?

Lemme guess...

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>> And don't forget that political BS promoting ethanol blends. Save the
>> planet,
>> higher prices and lower gas mileage.
>>
>
> yeah.. government logic... force the use of a product because it
> sounds good to people... an might get you re-elected. Oooops ...
> now we discover that burning ethanol can produce some rather ugly
> and dangerous by products.

Not to mention corn shortages that are ripping Mexico and other countries
apart...

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"dave" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "gatt" > wrote in message > Guys who bring
> this up on or.politics are usually called socialists,
>> communists, or America-hating lieberals, and the advice they're given is
>> to invest in XOM. To me, that's tantamount to investing in organized
>> crime. At some point we're either going to force them to put the national
>> interest over record oil prices, or pull a Chavez and nationalize it. I'm
>> not being a big-government socialist when I say that the federal
>> bureaucracy could run the oil industry at lower user cost. (Not
>> necessarily more efficiently, but in ways that are less damaging to the
>> US economy, transportation industries, etc.)
>
>
> If the market was truly working, then the oil companies would be
> increasing capacity
> before any predicted shortage due to summer/winter blends or recurirng
> spikes in demand.

They've been begging to do that for 30 years, but a certain group is very
good at intimidating the regulators (and many are EPA regulators themselves.

> This way they would try to to get a competitive advantge over one another,
> and have more gas on hand to sell at the higher price. Eventually the
> recurring, predictable shortage would go away.
>
> The problem is collusion and cartels. This is illegal, and not the way a
> free market is supposed to work.

Like OPEC?

Get a freaking clue and can the high-school level conspiracy drivel.

[ktbr]

wrote:

>
> You have an arrogant attitude.
>
That's the way I get when I hear people like you bitch.

> I have more in my 401K than you do,

I didn't say that amount was in my current 401K, if you had
actually comprehended what I wrote you would have known it is
a Roth IRA account which is contributory. Its available to
all working Americans.

> but that's not the point. I have a legitimate right to gripe about
> over-inflated gas prices which are clearly a result of poorly managed
> supply (not increasing demand).

The poor management is a result of chicken little attitudes like
yours and the complete lack of leadership in this country with
respect to an responsible energy plan.

> Investing money in the industry which
> I don't have at my disposal (and no, 401K funds typically don't allow
> you to target one or two stocks)

My 401K lets me choose among numerous types of investments, although
not indivudal stocks. Like I said... open up a Roth IRA if you want
more bang for your buck.

> as a way of saying "if you can't beat
> them, join them" is BS. Also, trying to insult my education is
> juvenile. You are what, 25? 28? You act like 17.
>

I have a BSEE too but for me it was only the beginning of a lifelong
educational process.

[ktbr]

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> From:
>
>
>>Really? Got a $100K I can have to invest in the oil companies? I
>>don't have it myself, so your suggestion does me no good.
>
>
> You don't need nearly that much to hedge your fuel costs (unless you
> burn one HELL of a lot of gas).
>
> Check out Canadian Oil Trusts
> (disclaimer: The following are some of my trades....I do this s**t for a living.
> Your results may vary)
>
> Canetic Resources Trust (CNE)
> Purchased $12.28 on 3/15/07
> Current $16.17
> Gain 34%
> Current Annual Dividend Yield 13.8%
>
> Harvest Energy Trust (HTE)
> Purchased $19.95 on 1/9/07
> Current $30.54
> Gain 52%
> Current Annual Dividend Yield 15%
>
> Pengrowth Energy Trust (PGH)
> Purchased $14.88 on 11/14/06
> Current $19.21
> Gain 28%
> Current Annual Dividend Yield 15.6%
>
> Penn West Energy Trust (PWE)
> Purchased $27.52 on 1/10/07
> Current $35.78
> Gain 28%
> Current Annual Dividend Yield 11.8%
>
> They all have had a fairly good capital gain, but there's
> still some upside room to move. A few political problems
> in the mideast, or a good hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico,
> could send them up quite a bit. And I don't see the price
> of oil taking a dive in the near future, either.
> But if not, an 11-15% dividend yield is nothing to **** on.
> The dividends are paid monthly, also, which increases the
> effective yield.
> Oh, and as I'm typing this, Valero just announced that two
> of their refineries are going down for "unscheduled maintenance".
>
> I'm still holding all the above companies.
>
> Still think it takes $100k?
>

Thank you for helping to make my point sir.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 6, 10:19 am, ktbr > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > You have an arrogant attitude.
>
> >
> That's the way I get when I hear people like you bitch.
>
> > I have more in my 401K than you do,
>
> I didn't say that amount was in my current 401K, if you had
> actually comprehended what I wrote you would have known it is
> a Roth IRA account which is contributory. Its available to
> all working Americans.
>
> > but that's not the point. I have a legitimate right to gripe about
> > over-inflated gas prices which are clearly a result of poorly managed
> > supply (not increasing demand).
>
> The poor management is a result of chicken little attitudes like
> yours and the complete lack of leadership in this country with
> respect to an responsible energy plan.
>
> > Investing money in the industry which
> > I don't have at my disposal (and no, 401K funds typically don't allow
> > you to target one or two stocks)
>
> My 401K lets me choose among numerous types of investments, although
> not indivudal stocks. Like I said... open up a Roth IRA if you want
> more bang for your buck.
>
> > as a way of saying "if you can't beat
> > them, join them" is BS. Also, trying to insult my education is
> > juvenile. You are what, 25? 28? You act like 17.
>
> I have a BSEE too but for me it was only the beginning of a lifelong
> educational process.

**** you and your high horse...

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

> wrote:
>

> Investing money in the industry which
> I don't have at my disposal (and no, 401K funds typically don't allow
> you to target one or two stocks)

Get an industry index fund.

If you would research more and **** and bitch less...

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 6, 10:19 am, ktbr > wrote:

>
> **** you and your high horse...

Screw you, you snotnosed punk.

[plonk]

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:
>
> You have an arrogant attitude. I have more in my 401K than you do,
> but that's not the point. I have a legitimate right to gripe about
> over-inflated gas prices which are clearly a result of poorly managed
> supply (not increasing demand). Investing money in the industry which
> I don't have at my disposal (and no, 401K funds typically don't allow
> you to target one or two stocks) as a way of saying "if you can't beat
> them, join them" is BS. Also, trying to insult my education is
> juvenile. You are what, 25? 28? You act like 17.
>
> Dean

You seem to be under the misconception that it is the oil company's job to
keep prices as low as posible. This is not the case. It is their job to keep
profits as high as they can. Obviously the market is able to deal with
prices at thier current rate because according to all the reports I've seen
holiday driving didn't drop a bit this past memorial day weekend.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "kontiki" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>>> And don't forget that political BS promoting ethanol blends. Save
>>> the planet,
>>> higher prices and lower gas mileage.
>>>
>>
>> yeah.. government logic... force the use of a product because it
>> sounds good to people... an might get you re-elected. Oooops ...
>> now we discover that burning ethanol can produce some rather ugly
>> and dangerous by products.
>
> Not to mention corn shortages that are ripping Mexico and other
> countries apart...

Worst than corn shortages they are burning the blue agave to replace it with
corn.

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN2924142520070530

This is just WRONG.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>>
>> You have an arrogant attitude. I have more in my 401K than you do,
>> but that's not the point. I have a legitimate right to gripe about
>> over-inflated gas prices which are clearly a result of poorly managed
>> supply (not increasing demand). Investing money in the industry which
>> I don't have at my disposal (and no, 401K funds typically don't allow
>> you to target one or two stocks) as a way of saying "if you can't beat
>> them, join them" is BS. Also, trying to insult my education is
>> juvenile. You are what, 25? 28? You act like 17.
>>
>> Dean
>
> You seem to be under the misconception that it is the oil company's job to
> keep prices as low as posible. This is not the case. It is their job to
> keep profits as high as they can.

And why did they hold prices at the $1.50 mark a few years ago instead of
running them to $3.00 a gallon like they are today?


> Obviously the market is able to deal with prices at thier current rate
> because according to all the reports I've seen holiday driving didn't drop
> a bit this past memorial day weekend.

Prices dropped early last winter because they market expected a mild winter.
They rose starting in January when that mild winter didn't materialize,
instead, it was somewhat brutal.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 6, 10:33 am, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > On Jun 6, 10:19 am, ktbr > wrote:
>
> > **** you and your high horse...
>
> Screw you, you snotnosed punk.
>
> [plonk]

back at ya
[plonk]

[[email protected]]

On Jun 6, 10:34 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > You have an arrogant attitude. I have more in my 401K than you do,
> > but that's not the point. I have a legitimate right to gripe about
> > over-inflated gas prices which are clearly a result of poorly managed
> > supply (not increasing demand). Investing money in the industry which
> > I don't have at my disposal (and no, 401K funds typically don't allow
> > you to target one or two stocks) as a way of saying "if you can't beat
> > them, join them" is BS. Also, trying to insult my education is
> > juvenile. You are what, 25? 28? You act like 17.
>
> > Dean
>
> You seem to be under the misconception that it is the oil company's job to
> keep prices as low as posible. This is not the case. It is their job to keep
> profits as high as they can. Obviously the market is able to deal with
> prices at thier current rate because according to all the reports I've seen
> holiday driving didn't drop a bit this past memorial day weekend.

I didn't go anywhere... not at these prices! I'm not claiming its the
oil companies fault anyway, its really our EPA restrictions that
prevent new refineries from being built. Think that is going to
change?

[Ken Finney]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 6, 4:07 am, kontiki > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Really? Got a $100K I can have to invest in the oil companies? I
>> > don't have it myself, so your suggestion does me no good.
>>
>> You don't need $100k in order to be an investor you doofus. Sign up
>> for a Schwab/Etrade/Scottrade account for as littel as $500.
>>
>> Sheesh... the education system is this country is as corrupt
>> as the government. Oh yeah... schools are run by the government.
>
> Oooh, so if I invest a whole $500 in oil, I might make what, $500 if I
> am lucky? Wow, big deal...
>
> It takes money to make money in the stock market. If you don't
> already have it, you have nothing to leverage to make any real money.
> Talk about needing an education! By the way, I have a B.S.E.E. and
> have taken economics courses on the time value of money, so I
> understand that anything less than $100K invested in oil isn't going
> to make enough money to really be worth crowing about. With the cost
> of living rising as fast as it is, you need to be making at least 10%
> on your money, and $100K will only earn about $10K annually at that
> rate of return. Housing, transportation and medical are the biggest
> rising cost factors and they aren't included in the consumer price
> index, specifically so that the government can claim low inflation!
>
> Is $500 big money to you?
>

$500 isn't big money to me, $0.01 is big money to me. I have change jars at
home, and a lot of what they are filled with is change I've picked up (yes,
I'll stop to pick up a penny), and I always check pay phones and vending
machines for change people leave behind. It adds up quite well over time.

[Ken Finney]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "kontiki" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>>> And don't forget that political BS promoting ethanol blends. Save the
>>> planet,
>>> higher prices and lower gas mileage.
>>>
>>
>> yeah.. government logic... force the use of a product because it
>> sounds good to people... an might get you re-elected. Oooops ...
>> now we discover that burning ethanol can produce some rather ugly
>> and dangerous by products.
>
> Not to mention corn shortages that are ripping Mexico and other countries
> apart...
>

Just a pet peeve of mine, but the farmers pay "check off" fees when they
sell their crops to pay for research to increase demand. That's what pays
for all those "Beef, it's what' for dinner" commercials, it isn't the
supermarkets, it's the farmers/ranchers to increase demand and hence prices.
Farmers have invested a lot of money to create increase demand for corn so
as to increase the price they receive for corn. My pet peeve is that
increased corn prices are presented by the media as an unfortunate
unintended consequence of ethanol production, where in truth, it was the
entire intent in the first place!

rant mode off.

[John Godwin]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
:

> Worst than corn shortages they are burning the blue agave to
> replace it with corn.

A Tequila shortage ... Oh Nooooooooo :-)

--

[Blueskies]

"Cubdriver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 07:05:28 -0700, "dave"
> > wrote:
>
>>If the market was truly working, then the oil companies would be increasing
>>capacity
>
> How can they do that if you won't allow a refinery to be built in your
> neighborhood?
>
> Someone said 20 years; it's actually 30 since a refinery was built in
> the U.S. The only capacity increases since the late 1970s have been in
> adding to existing refineries.
>
> Now go figure how much the population has increased in 30 years, and
> how much more each American drives today than 30 years ago.
>
> Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
>
> Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
> forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

The OP said "You will see that the gas deliveries in Mar 2007 are lower than they
were in Mar 1984." Ok, just 20+ years, but LESS...

[[email protected]]

On Jun 6, 8:46 am, wrote:
> On Jun 6, 9:39 am, kontiki > wrote:
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Oooh, so if I invest a whole $500 in oil, I might make what, $500 if I
> > > am lucky? Wow, big deal...
>
> > Exactly. Do you expect them to just start paying you money while until
> > you save enough beer money to buy some shares? Sheesh go collect a
> > welfare check.
>
> > > It takes money to make money in the stock market.
>
> > That's the general idea.
>
> > > If you don't
> > > already have it, you have nothing to leverage to make any real money.
>
> > Really? Wow I didn't know that!
>
> > > Talk about needing an education! By the way, I have a B.S.E.E. and
> > > have taken economics courses on the time value of money, so I
> > > understand that anything less than $100K invested in oil isn't going
> > > to make enough money to really be worth crowing about. With the cost
> > > of living rising as fast as it is, you need to be making at least 10%
> > > on your money, and $100K will only earn about $10K annually at that
> > > rate of return. Housing, transportation and medical are the biggest
> > > rising cost factors and they aren't included in the consumer price
> > > index, specifically so that the government can claim low inflation!
>
> > > Is $500 big money to you?
>
> > You are full of crap dude. I started with about $7K that I rolled over
> > from a 401K account from a previous job. I eventually rolled it into
> > a Roth and made modest contributions and investments over a period of
> > the last 7 years. Now the balance is over $80K and I didn't have to
> > break a sweat. And yes, I've taken the time to learn about investing
> > and researched stocks on my own. I've bought and sold shares in oil
> > companies over that time and made money. Its not rocket science.
>
> > You have a loser attitude.
>
> You have an arrogant attitude. I have more in my 401K than you do,
> but that's not the point. I have a legitimate right to gripe about
> over-inflated gas prices which are clearly a result of poorly managed
> supply (not increasing demand). Investing money in the industry which
> I don't have at my disposal (and no, 401K funds typically don't allow
> you to target one or two stocks) as a way of saying "if you can't beat
> them, join them" is BS. Also, trying to insult my education is
> juvenile. You are what, 25? 28? You act like 17.
>
> Dean

Gas prices are inflated to you. They are not inflated to the guy who
is working to sell TO you.
Buy a more fuel-efficient car, car-pool, whatever. Just quit griping.
The supply isn't poorly managed. The oil pool is finite. It used to
bubble out of the ground on its own; now they are drilling exploratory
wells as deep as 13,000 feet. It's running low and playing hard to
get. AND there are more people wanting it. I do SO wish I had
invested in oil stocks about 5 years ago...

We used to have more mass transit in this country. CAR companies
worked hard to get rid of it in the first half of the 1900s, and it
worked quite well. Bummer.
Today, people can stop buying the guzzlers, and that would go a long
way to end the carping about the price of gas.

As far as the 401, "takes money to make money", etc. Many of today's
rich are not Kennedys--by which I mean they didn't inherit money and
influence, but they somehow made it. And not likely by just working
60 hours per week. They invested what they could, early in their
careers. Making $500 on an investment isn't much, but keep rolling it
back in. Next time you have $1000, next time $2000, etc. After a
while, you have some real money. Most young people today could easily
retire rich if they stopped with the $5 bottled water, cut back a bit
on the Starbucks, and bought wine for a buck less per bottle. Put all
that away from the time you are 20, and in many cases it's a pretty
good starter nest egg.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 6, 10:23 am, "Ken Finney" > wrote:
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "kontiki" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
> >>> And don't forget that political BS promoting ethanol blends. Save the
> >>> planet,
> >>> higher prices and lower gas mileage.
>
> >> yeah.. government logic... force the use of a product because it
> >> sounds good to people... an might get you re-elected. Oooops ...
> >> now we discover that burning ethanol can produce some rather ugly
> >> and dangerous by products.
>
> > Not to mention corn shortages that are ripping Mexico and other countries
> > apart...
>
> Just a pet peeve of mine, but the farmers pay "check off" fees when they
> sell their crops to pay for research to increase demand. That's what pays
> for all those "Beef, it's what' for dinner" commercials, it isn't the
> supermarkets, it's the farmers/ranchers to increase demand and hence prices.
> Farmers have invested a lot of money to create increase demand for corn so
> as to increase the price they receive for corn. My pet peeve is that
> increased corn prices are presented by the media as an unfortunate
> unintended consequence of ethanol production, where in truth, it was the
> entire intent in the first place!
>
> rant mode off.

My bigger peeve is hundreds of millions of tax money going to Archer
Daniels Midland to develop alcohol for fuel. ADM is hugely
profitable. Why are my taxes going to this? If alcohol from CORN is
viable, I don't need to subsidize it. Besides, it isn't a good deal
from an energy investment/reward standpoint either.

[dave]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "dave" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> "gatt" > wrote in message > Guys who bring
>> this up on or.politics are usually called socialists,
>>> communists, or America-hating lieberals, and the advice they're given is
>>> to invest in XOM. To me, that's tantamount to investing in organized
>>> crime. At some point we're either going to force them to put the
>>> national interest over record oil prices, or pull a Chavez and
>>> nationalize it. I'm not being a big-government socialist when I say that
>>> the federal bureaucracy could run the oil industry at lower user cost.
>>> (Not necessarily more efficiently, but in ways that are less damaging to
>>> the US economy, transportation industries, etc.)
>>
>>
>> If the market was truly working, then the oil companies would be
>> increasing capacity
>> before any predicted shortage due to summer/winter blends or recurirng
>> spikes in demand.
>
> They've been begging to do that for 30 years, but a certain group is very
> good at intimidating the regulators (and many are EPA regulators
> themselves.
>
>> This way they would try to to get a competitive advantge over one
>> another, and have more gas on hand to sell at the higher price.
>> Eventually the recurring, predictable shortage would go away.
>>
>> The problem is collusion and cartels. This is illegal, and not the way a
>> free market is supposed to work.
>
> Like OPEC?
>
> Get a freaking clue and can the high-school level conspiracy drivel.

So the US gas production is running flat out 24/7 at 100% capacity? They
can't produce 1 drop more?

A predictable, recurring shortage, such as due to switching processes every
season, should not persist year after year. One company should ask, "why not
start our summer production a month early so we can sell more at the higher
summer price while our competitiors are doing their change over". That
ladder climbing exec gets a promotion and a big fat bonus. Eventually others
catch on and try to undercut each other, until the benefit is marginal. But
this does'nt happen. I'm just asking why.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 5, 3:31 pm, wrote:
> If you follow this link: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/a103600001m.htm
>
> You will see that the gas deliveries in Mar 2007 are lower than they
> were in Mar 1984. This is despite the claims by oil companies that
> they have been constantly expanding their refining capacity, and the
> reason for the over $3.00 a gallon pricing is due to refining
> capacity. Sorry, but I just don't see the demand being much higher
> now than it was in the early 80's from this data! How can there be a
> refinery shortage if the capacity has been increasing, but deliveries
> are flat? Add to that the fact that crude oil is $10 a barrel less
> this year than it was last year, and you can figure that the oil
> companies are going to report huge profits this year...
>
> I think the truth is that the gasoline futures market is being
> manipulated to maximize profits. Why else would the prices of av-gas
> rise so much when demand has dropped by nearly 50% since 2000? Why
> would auto-gas prices rise rapidly, when demand is flat?
>
> The table does not yet show the auto-gas deliveries for April, May, or
> June 2007. That data should be interesting given the sharp rise in
> prices that occured in that time period. I wonder if demand has
> dropped as a result of prices going up.
>
> Dean

Well, it looks like we may be seeing a significant drop in gasoline
prices by July based on the Futures contract prices:
Unleaded Gas (NYM)
July 07 ($US per gal.) 2.22 +0.03 2.23 2.20 2.19 6/7 10:22am

I suspect that there has been enough of a drop in actual demand, and
enough profit taking to drive the prices back down. I also heard that
there has been a lot of stocking by wholesaler's that has driven the
supply up in the face of declining demand with the amount of price
elasticity that does exist in the market...

Oh, and Kontiki, you probably consider this to be whining as well....

[Paul kgyy]

In response to the original post, the oil companies are doing what
they are supposed to do; maximize value to their shareholders, which
you could become if you care to.

In the long run, though, it's worth considering that worldwide oil
production will probably peak and trend down in the next 5 years,
while demand from China and other emerging economies continues to
rise. There's only one outcome from that unless we learn to use
what's there more efficiently.

Ethanol is a bum's rush because it requires a lot of energy to
produce, and so its cost of production can only go up. Same for tar
sands.

I guess it's time to really get to work on that fission reactor for my
PA28. But if everybody did that, the supply of yellowcake would
probably run out too.

We have an entire world economy built around the assumption of
unlimited supply of cheap energy.

Whatever became of those guys who swore they had observe a fusion
reaction in a laboratory bottle about 20 years ago?

[gatt]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 5, 3:49 pm, "gatt" > wrote:
> I'm not being
>> a big-government socialist when I say that the federal bureaucracy could
>> run
>> the oil industry at lower user cost. (Not necessarily more efficiently,
>> but in ways that are less damaging to the US economy, transportation
>> industries, etc.)
>>
>> -c
>
> JEEEEEEEPPPPPERS!!!
> Don't EVER say that out loud!
> You've seen how well the feds have run aviation lately, and then say
> that they might run oil companies at a lower cost???
> What's in your water? (OK, insert half a smiley here....)
> We know how thick the paperwork and regs books are just to fly a
> little ol' plane from point A to point B. I can't imaigine how bad
> the oil business would be if the job-justifying feds started running
> it.


Oh, I agree that they'd turn it into a bureaucracy. That's my point; it
would probably STILL be cheaper to consumer because even after all of the
red tape, we'd not be lining the pockets of price-rigging sheiks, tycoons
billionairres.

-c

[gatt]

"M" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> I agree with you that high gasoline price maximizes oil company
> profit. However as a pilot you can easily hedge on that by buying oil
> company stock,

And if you pay the mob, thugs won't keep trashing your store.

>I'm quite certain that I made far more from the oil companies than what I
>paid
> extra for the fuel, and I only have a small part of my 401k in the
> energy sector.

I have an ethical problem with the idea that the way to combat corrupt
practices and preditorial pricing--which hurts the American economy--is to
invest in it.

Sorry. My conscience prevents me from doing that.

-c

[gatt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

> You seem to be under the misconception that it is the oil company's job to
> keep prices as low as posible. This is not the case. It is their job to
> keep profits as high as they can. Obviously the market is able to deal
> with prices at thier current rate because according to all the reports
> I've seen holiday driving didn't drop a bit this past memorial day
> weekend.

How's general aviation doing? How are the airlines doing? Who do you
suppose is subsidizing all those federal bailouts?

Notice that the cost of groceries and postage are going up? Notice how the
cost of airplane rentals is going up?

At what point do we say "It's not the oil company's job to keep oil prices
as low as possible, but it's America's job to protect its own economy
instead of letting Exxon make record profits while the entire US economy
suffers?"

If you guys want to get Draconian about it, I think it's perfectly fair for
Uncle Sam to push back. Don't Tread on Me, et al.

-c

[Jim Logajan]

Paul kgyy > wrote:
> I guess it's time to really get to work on that fission reactor for my
> PA28. But if everybody did that, the supply of yellowcake would
> probably run out too.

Yup - used up in only a few million years - so it's a waste of time! :-)

Seriously though, the supply of uranium on earth could probably supply
all of humanity's energy needs for millions of years even at per capita
consumption an order of magnitude greater than today.

In the November 2004 "Physics Today" magazine Bernard L. Cohen stated:

"The world's energy needs could be provided by uranium-fueled breeder
reactors for the full billion years that life on Earth will be
sustainable, without the price of electricity increasing by more than a
small fraction of 1% due to raw fuel costs[1]....

The cost of extracting uranium from its most plentiful source, seawater,
is about $250 per pound—the energy equivalent of gasoline at 0.13 cent
per gallon! The uranium now in the oceans could provide the world's
current electricity usage for 7 million years. But seawater uranium
levels are constantly being replenished, by rivers that carry uranium
dissolved out of rock, at a rate sufficient to provide 20 times the
world's current total electricity usage. In view of the geological cycles
of erosion, subduction, and land uplift, this process could continue for
a billion years with no appreciable reduction of the uranium
concentration in seawater and hence no increase in extraction costs."

Here's the letters section, online:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-11/p12.html

[1] 1. B. L. Cohen, Am. J. Phys. 51, 75 (1983).

And here's a report on an experiment actually carried out on extracting
yellowcake from seawater:

"Aquaculture of Uranium in Seawater by a Fabric-Adsorbent Submerged
System"
http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/nt/va-144-2-274-278 :

"The total amount of uranium dissolved in seawater at a uniform
concentration of 3 mg U/m3 in the world's oceans is 4.5 billion tons. An
adsorption method using polymeric adsorbents capable of specifically
recovering uranium from seawater is reported to be economically feasible.
A uranium-specific nonwoven fabric was used as the adsorbent packed in an
adsorption cage 16 m2 in cross-sectional area and 16 cm in height. We
submerged three adsorption cages in the Pacific Ocean at a depth of 20 m
at 7 km offshore of Japan. The three adsorption cages consisted of stacks
of 52 000 sheets of the uranium-specific non-woven fabric with a total
mass of 350 kg. The total amount of uranium recovered by the nonwoven
fabric was >1 kg in terms of yellow cake during a total submersion time
of 240 days in the ocean."

[gatt]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...

> There's a number of people doing stock analysis who made their fortunes
> starting with just a few hundreds. Before my wife "retired" from the stock
> brokerage business to run OUR business, she knew, personally, dozens of
> self-made millionaires.
>
> What do they have that Dean hasn't got?

People used to defend Enron. An electrician down the road from me that
worked for PGE--whom Enron acquired--lost his $330,000 retirement
investment.

Apparently, the Enron book-cookers were just smarter and had something they
the electrician didn't have. Nobody defends Enron anymore, but, at the
same time, nobody listened when a handful of people predicted disaster.
(People did the same with the dot com industry, but as long as people were
making money hand over fist, they didn't bother to listen.)

-c

[gatt]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "kontiki" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>>> And don't forget that political BS promoting ethanol blends. Save the
>>> planet,
>>> higher prices and lower gas mileage.

Yeah, sure doesn't work for Brazil, does it?




-c

[gatt]

"Cubdriver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
...

>
> Someone said 20 years; it's actually 30 since a refinery was built in
> the U.S.

Yeah...apparently the oil industry can't afford them or something. It's
those pesky environmentalists. It's getting to be so as an oilman can
barely make a living anymore. That's why there haven't been any refineries
built. There's just no money in oil.

It's not because if there aren't any refineries it throttles the oil supply
and makes it more profitable. They'd never do a dastardly thing like that.
Why...look at how broke they are!

-c

[gatt]

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> In response to the original post, the oil companies are doing what
> they are supposed to do; maximize value to their shareholders, which
> you could become if you care to.

I could become a pornographer, pimp or mercenary, too.

Ethics.


> Whatever became of those guys who swore they had observe a fusion
> reaction in a laboratory bottle about 20 years ago?

Scientific ridicule, but just think if the US had spend $500 billion on cold
fusion research instead of chasing WMDs around Iraq while our actual enemies
hide out in Afghanistan. Might be half a trillion dollars closer to giving
OPEC the star-spangled finger once and for all.

-c

[BDS[_2_]]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > In response to the original post, the oil companies are doing what
> > they are supposed to do; maximize value to their shareholders, which
> > you could become if you care to.
>
> I could become a pornographer, pimp or mercenary, too.
>
> Ethics.

It is not unethical to sell your product for the highest price possible.
People tell you what they are willing to pay because they stop buying or cut
back when the price gets too high. In the US there is still quite a bit of
gasoline use for recreational purposes and people driving SUVs that are the
size of small neighborhoods. I don't believe that the price is anywhere
near as high as it could actually go before the people doing the complaining
start to think about conservation.

BTW, I suspect that if you had your own business you would sell your
products at the highest price possible too.

> > Whatever became of those guys who swore they had observe a fusion
> > reaction in a laboratory bottle about 20 years ago?

You can see one right now - just look up in the sky. That's all it takes.

BDS

[[email protected]]

On Jun 7, 10:35 am, Paul kgyy > wrote:
> In response to the original post, the oil companies are doing what
> they are supposed to do; maximize value to their shareholders, which
> you could become if you care to.
>
> In the long run, though, it's worth considering that worldwide oil
> production will probably peak and trend down in the next 5 years,
> while demand from China and other emerging economies continues to
> rise. There's only one outcome from that unless we learn to use
> what's there more efficiently.
>
> Ethanol is a bum's rush because it requires a lot of energy to
> produce, and so its cost of production can only go up. Same for tar
> sands.
>
> I guess it's time to really get to work on that fission reactor for my
> PA28. But if everybody did that, the supply of yellowcake would
> probably run out too.
>
> We have an entire world economy built around the assumption of
> unlimited supply of cheap energy.
>
> Whatever became of those guys who swore they had observe a fusion
> reaction in a laboratory bottle about 20 years ago?

Will it really peak in 5 years? I think not. Google Thomas Gold and
non-biogenic oil and you will find that the party line may not be
true.

[gatt]

> wrote in message
oups.com...

> I didn't go anywhere... not at these prices! I'm not claiming its the
> oil companies fault anyway, its really our EPA restrictions that
> prevent new refineries from being built. Think that is going to
> change?

Depends on whether people want to believe every excuse the oil industry
comes up with while it's making record profits by throttling the oil supply.

Do the math. There's a theoretical finite amount of petroleum. As an oil
baron, your job is to extract the maximum value out of every drop that you
can. Abundance reduces profit margin. All you have to do is keep the supply
limited an blame the war, Katrina, lack of refineries, unrest is the middle
east, speculation that oil prices will rise, EPA regulations, treehuggers,
"unexpected holiday shortages", whatever. If everybody had diamonds, they
wouldn't be worth a fortune.

Energy supply and rate manipulation worked for Enron, they just didn't do it
as smartly or with as much support.

-c

[gatt]

"BDS" > wrote in message
et...
>
> It is not unethical to sell your product for the highest price possible.

It is if people are going hungry or out of business because of it.

> I don't believe that the price is anywhere near as high as it could
> actually go before the people doing the complaining
> start to think about conservation.

Don't think about recreationalists, think about FBOs, flight instructors,
charter services, independent truckers, couriers, farmers and everybody else
who is suffering because people still make excuses for record profits.

> BTW, I suspect that if you had your own business you would sell your
> products at the highest price possible too.

Is that what Jesus would do? I wouldn't do it if I was making billions
while my neighbors and my nation suffered.

-c

[Gig 601XL Builder]

gatt wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>> You seem to be under the misconception that it is the oil company's
>> job to keep prices as low as posible. This is not the case. It is
>> their job to keep profits as high as they can. Obviously the market
>> is able to deal with prices at thier current rate because according
>> to all the reports I've seen holiday driving didn't drop a bit this
>> past memorial day weekend.
>
> How's general aviation doing? How are the airlines doing? Who do you
> suppose is subsidizing all those federal bailouts?
>
> Notice that the cost of groceries and postage are going up? Notice
> how the cost of airplane rentals is going up?
>
> At what point do we say "It's not the oil company's job to keep oil
> prices as low as possible, but it's America's job to protect its own
> economy instead of letting Exxon make record profits while the entire
> US economy suffers?"
>
> If you guys want to get Draconian about it, I think it's perfectly
> fair for Uncle Sam to push back. Don't Tread on Me, et al.
>
> -c

All America has to do to stop Exxon from making record profits is to but
less gas. Since the amount of discretionary driving this past Memorial Day
weekend didn't drop it seems that the American people really aren't that
concerned with the current price of gas.

General aviation sucks as industry though there are several bright spots.
Fuel costs are part of the problem especially in the recreation sector I
don't think that's all of it. For some reason people just don't seem to
won't their own airplane. People are spending just as much on boats that
burn just as much if not more gas than aircraft do.

As far as bailouts go they need to stop. I might not say that if it weren't
for the fact that there are airlines out there making money.

It's when the government gets involved that everything will get really
screwed up.

[Ken Finney]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "BDS" > wrote in message
> et...
>>
>> It is not unethical to sell your product for the highest price possible.
>
> It is if people are going hungry or out of business because of it.
>
>> I don't believe that the price is anywhere near as high as it could
>> actually go before the people doing the complaining
>> start to think about conservation.
>
> Don't think about recreationalists, think about FBOs, flight instructors,
> charter services, independent truckers, couriers, farmers and everybody
> else who is suffering because people still make excuses for record
> profits.
>
>> BTW, I suspect that if you had your own business you would sell your
>> products at the highest price possible too.
>
> Is that what Jesus would do? I wouldn't do it if I was making billions
> while my neighbors and my nation suffered.

YOUR NATION ISN'T SUFFERING!

Some people are suffering, other's aren't. If everyone had a "Mr. Fusion"
powering their cars and planes tomorrow, would that be a good thing? Think
of all the suffering of the gas station owner, FBO, etc. There are always
winners and losers. Any system that attempts to make sure there aren't
losers, keeps other people from being winners. And the funny thing under
such systems, is that even in an absence of winners, there will still be
losers.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

gatt wrote:
>
>People used to defend Enron. An electrician down the road from me that
>worked for PGE--whom Enron acquired--lost his $330,000 retirement
>investment.
>
>Apparently, the Enron book-cookers were just smarter and had something they
>the electrician didn't have. Nobody defends Enron anymore, but, at the
>same time, nobody listened when a handful of people predicted disaster.
>(People did the same with the dot com industry, but as long as people were
>making money hand over fist, they didn't bother to listen.)
>

I don't defend Enron, but am also not entirely sympathetic to those who
"lost their whole retirement nestegg". I saw a lot of news stories about
these unfortunate folks, but never heard a reporter ask them the obvious
question. "Why would a sane person invest their entire retirement nestegg in
one company's stock?". Enron employees were not required to buy Enron
stock in their retirement plans. They did so because of one reason. Greed.
They wanted to make high double and triple digit returns on their investments
and threw caution and common sense out the window.

Enron was most definitely a scam, but common sense goes a long way towards
minimizing the effect of any one bad apple on one's retirement portfolio.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200706/1

[gatt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

> All America has to do to stop Exxon from making record profits is to but
> less gas.

> Since the amount of discretionary driving this past Memorial Day weekend
> didn't drop it seems that the American people really aren't that concerned
> with the current price of gas.

Ah, yeah. All the people talking about it all the time aren't really
concerned.

How's GM doing these days? How about the airlines? Taxpayers gotta keep
bailing them out. Must be a reason nobody wants a Hummer anymore, but, I
wonder what it could be.

> Fuel costs are part of the problem especially in the recreation sector I
> don't think that's all of it.

Naw. $4/gallon at the boat fuel dock for gas that cost $2/gallon in 2002
at the same pump has nothing to do with why I don't put my boat in the water
anymore, and kayak instead. And, nobody's at all curious as to why the cost
of gas nearly doubled in the last two years. Fuel costs. Naaah. Gotta be
something else.

> For some reason people just don't seem to won't their own airplane.
> People are spending just as much on boats that burn just as much if not
> more gas than aircraft do.

I don't drive my boat anymore because of the cost of gas. Nor do my wife
and I take long roadtrips in our jeep. Nor do my friends. Back during and
right after college, you'd not have caught a friend of mine buying a new
vehicle that wasn't American made. But now, they're buying Toyotas which,
you might remember, is wiping the world's ass with Ford and General Motors.
That's because the latter can't seem to deliver a fuel efficent vehicle, at
least until the Escape came along. (One of the Toyota buyers bought an
Escape hybrid and loves it.)

-c

[gatt]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:735c640ba893b@uwe...

> I don't defend Enron, but am also not entirely sympathetic to those who
> "lost their whole retirement nestegg". I saw a lot of news stories
> about
> these unfortunate folks, but never heard a reporter ask them the obvious
> question. "Why would a sane person invest their entire retirement nestegg
> in
> one company's stock?".

Because they trusted the company they'd worked for for so long, before Enron
bought it, and none of them expected that the company would be acquired and
destroyed by felons.

Sort of like how my father trusted United before they furloughed him a year
before his retirement and then annihilated his pension. (But don't worry,
the taxpayers will handle that burden. )

> Enron employees were not required to buy Enron stock in their retirement
> plans. They did so because of one reason. Greed.

Is that why people buy XOM stock? Greed?

> Enron was most definitely a scam, but common sense goes a long way
> towards
> minimizing the effect of any one bad apple on one's retirement portfolio.

How is that relevant to corporate corruption?

-c

[Morgans[_2_]]

"gatt" > wrote
>
> Yeah, sure doesn't work for Brazil, does it?

Brazil is not trying to squeeze alcohol from corn, either.

Big difference.
--
Jim in NC

[gatt]

"Ken Finney" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Is that what Jesus would do? I wouldn't do it if I was making billions
>> while my neighbors and my nation suffered.
>
> YOUR NATION ISN'T SUFFERING!

Ah. Okay, so everybody's hollering about the price of gasoline because
there's nothing better to do. Thanks for clearing that up.


> Some people are suffering, other's aren't. If everyone had a "Mr. Fusion"
> powering their cars and planes tomorrow, would that be a good thing?
> Think of all the suffering of the gas station owner

You don't think gas station owners are suffering right now?

> FBO, etc.

You don't think FBOs are suffering right now?

>And the funny thing under such systems, is that even in an absence of
>winners, there will still be losers.

The oil industry is making record profits in the history of the world. All
anybody is asking them to do is not make so much so that America isn't the
loser.
The oil industry is never the winner.

-c

[gatt]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "gatt" > wrote
>>
>> Yeah, sure doesn't work for Brazil, does it?
>
> Brazil is not trying to squeeze alcohol from corn, either.
>
> Big difference.


Sugar grows really well in places like Louisiana.

-c

[Jim Logajan]

"gatt" > wrote:
> Sugar grows really well in places like Louisiana.

Corn, sugarcane, and other crops appear to be dwarfed by the energy
delivered by a family of organisms dating back nearly 3.5 billion years:

Algae.

See:
http://www.physorg.com/news89400502.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_content_of_Biofuel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture#Biodiesel_production

"Microalgae have much faster growth-rates than terrestrial crops. The per
unit area yield of oil from algae is estimated to be from between 5,000 to
20,000 gallons per acre, per year; this is 7 to 31 times greater than the
next best crop, palm oil (635 gallons)." (From the Algaculture article.)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" wrote

> Corn, sugarcane, and other crops appear to be dwarfed by the energy
> delivered by a family of organisms dating back nearly 3.5 billion years:
>
> Algae.

PLUS the added bonus that it produces massive amounts of oxygen, while
consuming carbon dioxide.

It really is a neat little solar collector of a cell.
--
Jim in NC

[gatt]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "gatt" > wrote:
>> Sugar grows really well in places like Louisiana.
>
> Corn, sugarcane, and other crops appear to be dwarfed by the energy
> delivered by a family of organisms dating back nearly 3.5 billion years:
>
> Algae.

It would be spectacular if we could harvest algae for fuel.

-c

[Jim Logajan]

"Morgans" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" wrote
>
>> Corn, sugarcane, and other crops appear to be dwarfed by the energy
>> delivered by a family of organisms dating back nearly 3.5 billion years:
>>
>> Algae.
>
> PLUS the added bonus that it produces massive amounts of oxygen, while
> consuming carbon dioxide.

True on both counts - but one could burn the entire biosphere and it would
not consume all the oxygen in the atmosphere. So the extra oxygen is no big
deal since no shortage is anticipated. Unless you are thinking of some
other advantage or use of the oxygen....

[[email protected]]

On Jun 7, 10:32 am, "gatt" > wrote:
> "M" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > I agree with you that high gasoline price maximizes oil company
> > profit. However as a pilot you can easily hedge on that by buying oil
> > company stock,
>
> And if you pay the mob, thugs won't keep trashing your store.
>
> >I'm quite certain that I made far more from the oil companies than what I
> >paid
> > extra for the fuel, and I only have a small part of my 401k in the
> > energy sector.
>
> I have an ethical problem with the idea that the way to combat corrupt
> practices and preditorial pricing--which hurts the American economy--is to
> invest in it.
>
> Sorry. My conscience prevents me from doing that.
>
> -c

There's nothing predatory about it. We have about the cheapest gas in
the developed world, by far.
They don't come get your money--you drive to them and willingly give
it to them, generally in an inefficient car that has more available
horsepower than a small airplane and more cupholders than a country
bar.
The American economy has been hurt by its becoming drunk on cheap
energy instead of learning to do things efficiently, in terms of
outright efficiency as well as lifestyle. Hangovers hurt, but they do
serve their purpose.

[BDS[_2_]]

"gatt" > wrote

> Ah. Okay, so everybody's hollering about the price of gasoline because
> there's nothing better to do. Thanks for clearing that up.

They complain, but they don't curtail their use much, if at all. What does
that tell you?

> You don't think gas station owners are suffering right now?

Maybe, maybe not. It might be time for some of them to consider
alternatives if they are. However, since consumption hasn't gone down much
I suspect the gas station owners are doing just fine, thank you.

> The oil industry is making record profits in the history of the world.
All
> anybody is asking them to do is not make so much so that America isn't the
> loser.

Their shareholders love them for it. You might even know some of the people
who are sharing in those record profits - some of them are probably your
neighbors, fellow pilots, and maybe even an FBO owner or two.

BDS

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"gatt" > wrote:

[snip]
> That's because the latter can't seem to deliver a fuel efficent vehicle, at
> least until the Escape came along. (One of the Toyota buyers bought an
> Escape hybrid and loves it.)

btw - I believe the Escape hybrid technology is from Toyota.

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

gatt wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>> All America has to do to stop Exxon from making record profits is to
>> but less gas.
>
>> Since the amount of discretionary driving this past Memorial Day weekend
>> didn't drop it seems that the American people really aren't
>> that concerned with the current price of gas.
>
> Ah, yeah. All the people talking about it all the time aren't really
> concerned.

Sure they are talking about it. But when push comes to shove they still
drive the same way they did when gas was 1.50/gal.
>
> How's GM doing these days? How about the airlines? Taxpayers gotta
> keep bailing them out. Must be a reason nobody wants a Hummer
> anymore, but, I wonder what it could be.
>

If you think GM problems are caused only by the price of gas you are nuts.
Their problem is they produce a sub-par product.


>> Fuel costs are part of the problem especially in the recreation
>> sector I don't think that's all of it.
>
> Naw. $4/gallon at the boat fuel dock for gas that cost $2/gallon in
> 2002 at the same pump has nothing to do with why I don't put my boat
> in the water anymore, and kayak instead. And, nobody's at all
> curious as to why the cost of gas nearly doubled in the last two
> years. Fuel costs. Naaah. Gotta be something else.
>
>> For some reason people just don't seem to won't their own airplane.
>> People are spending just as much on boats that burn just as much if
>> not more gas than aircraft do.
>
> I don't drive my boat anymore because of the cost of gas. Nor do my
> wife and I take long roadtrips in our jeep. Nor do my friends. Back
> during and right after college, you'd not have caught a friend
> of mine buying a new vehicle that wasn't American made. But now,
> they're buying Toyotas which, you might remember, is wiping the
> world's ass with Ford and General Motors. That's because the latter
> can't seem to deliver a fuel efficent vehicle, at least until the
> Escape came along. (One of the Toyota buyers bought an Escape
> hybrid and loves it.)
> -c

You and your friend are the exception. Not the rule.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

gatt wrote:

> The oil industry is making record profits in the history of the
> world. All anybody is asking them to do is not make so much so that
> America isn't the loser.
> The oil industry is never the winner.
>
> -c

The point is they aren't asking them in the right way. All they have to do
is reduce demand.

[gatt]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...

> "gatt" > wrote:
>
>> That's because the latter can't seem to deliver a fuel efficent vehicle,
>> at
>> least until the Escape came along. (One of the Toyota buyers bought an
>> Escape hybrid and loves it.)
>
> btw - I believe the Escape hybrid technology is from Toyota.

Yeah, pretty much. They got on the Escape waiting list and for two years
or so all they got was an occasional glossy newsletter showing them what
their vehicle would look like, etc. In the meantime, they tired of waiting,
got on the Prius waiting list and took delivery of the Prius first. When
the Escape became available, they bought it too. Now they have two hybrids.

-c

[Ken Finney]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ken Finney" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>> Is that what Jesus would do? I wouldn't do it if I was making
>>> billions while my neighbors and my nation suffered.
>>
>> YOUR NATION ISN'T SUFFERING!
>
> Ah. Okay, so everybody's hollering about the price of gasoline because
> there's nothing better to do. Thanks for clearing that up.

My entire life, I've planned trips. I don't drive to the grocery store,
then go home, then go to the hardware store, then go home, then go someplace
else, then go home. I plan to visit all the places I need to, construct the
most efficient route (even factoring in as many right turns as possible),
then make the trip. MOST people don't do anything like this, I know more
than a few that drive down to their mailboxes and back. When I had inlaws
in Florida, they would run outside, start the car to run the air
conditioning, run back inside for 5 minutes while the car cooled down, run
back outside, drive less than 100 feet to the mailbox, then drive back to
the house and go inside to read the mail. And they weren't handicapped.
Since the real issue isn't how much gas costs per gallon, but how much money
a person spends for the gas they consume, people can make choices to keep
that number down. That is a much more efficient use of their time than
hollering. Plus, it keeps more money out of the hands of evil "big oil"!
;^)

>
>
>> Some people are suffering, other's aren't. If everyone had a "Mr.
>> Fusion" powering their cars and planes tomorrow, would that be a good
>> thing? Think of all the suffering of the gas station owner
>
> You don't think gas station owners are suffering right now?

I think most gas stations make most of their money on non-gas purchases, so
they might be, at least a little.

>
>> FBO, etc.
>
> You don't think FBOs are suffering right now?
>

I'm not very familiar with larger FBOs, but smaller FBOs have pretty much
been a disaster zone since 1947. What was that line from "The Grapes of
Wrath"? "People shouldn't have to live like that." "Them aren't people,
them's Okies." Just substitute "FBOs" for "Okies".



>>And the funny thing under such systems, is that even in an absence of
>>winners, there will still be losers.
>
> The oil industry is making record profits in the history of the world.
> All anybody is asking them to do is not make so much so that America isn't
> the loser.
> The oil industry is never the winner.
>
> -c
>

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> In response to the original post, the oil companies are doing what
> they are supposed to do; maximize value to their shareholders, which
> you could become if you care to.
>
> In the long run, though, it's worth considering that worldwide oil
> production will probably peak and trend down in the next 5 years,

No, it won't (short of a nuclear conflagration, or Middle East nuke fest).

The only limits to production are POLITICAL.

In about 1960, a mile deep well was a big deal; now it's an undergrad school
project.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"BDS" > wrote in message
et...
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> > In response to the original post, the oil companies are doing what
>> > they are supposed to do; maximize value to their shareholders, which
>> > you could become if you care to.
>>
>> I could become a pornographer, pimp or mercenary, too.
>>
>> Ethics.
>
> It is not unethical to sell your product for the highest price possible.

Quite! As it is with one's salary demands; your pay rate is YOUR price for
YOUR services and depends on the MARKET.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Ken Finney" > wrote in message
...
>
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "BDS" > wrote in message
>> et...
>>>
>>> It is not unethical to sell your product for the highest price possible.
>>
>> It is if people are going hungry or out of business because of it.
>>
>>> I don't believe that the price is anywhere near as high as it could
>>> actually go before the people doing the complaining
>>> start to think about conservation.
>>
>> Don't think about recreationalists, think about FBOs, flight instructors,
>> charter services, independent truckers, couriers, farmers and everybody
>> else who is suffering because people still make excuses for record
>> profits.
>>
>>> BTW, I suspect that if you had your own business you would sell your
>>> products at the highest price possible too.
>>
>> Is that what Jesus would do? I wouldn't do it if I was making billions
>> while my neighbors and my nation suffered.
>
> YOUR NATION ISN'T SUFFERING!

If it is, maybe it should pull it's head out of it's ass and stop whining.

"YOU GET A GODDAMN JOB BEFORE SUNDOWN, OR WE'RE SHIPPING YOU OFF TO MILITARY
SCHOOL WITH THAT GODDAMN FINKENSTEIN **** KID!!!"

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

> gatt wrote:
>
> The oil industry is making record profits in the history of the
> world. All anybody is asking them to do is not make so much so that
> America isn't the loser.

Do you know the difference between a "profit" and a "profit margin"?

Or do you just puke back the MSM/Public School drivel?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> gatt wrote:
>
>> The oil industry is making record profits in the history of the
>> world. All anybody is asking them to do is not make so much so that
>> America isn't the loser.
>> The oil industry is never the winner.
>>
>> -c
>
> The point is they aren't asking them in the right way. All they have to do
> is reduce demand.
Fine! First, we nuke China....

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

gatt wrote:
>
> At what point do we say "It's not the oil company's job to keep oil
> prices as low as possible, but it's America's job to protect its own
> economy instead of letting Exxon make record profits while the entire
> US economy suffers?"

The economy is suffering? The DJIA is in record territory.

Hey, how about you quit sucking the gub'mint peepee and have them give up
their 45 cents a gallon for sitting there and doing nothing (and, yes, half
of fuel taxes goes into the general toilet...I mean general fund; the vast
majority otherwise goes to prok-barrel projects, such as freeways to no
where in Wet Virginia, or bridges to no where in Alaska)


>>
>> If you guys want to get Draconian about it, I think it's perfectly
>> fair for Uncle Sam to push back. Don't Tread on Me, et al.

Thug!

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> gatt whined...and whines...and whined:

>
> It's when the government gets involved that everything will get really
> screwed up.

Every time, in every way.

The only surpluses that government creates are parasites, elsewise, they
only create shortages.

This, one can thnk for mental midgets like "gatt" and a couple generations
of publik skool grauites. For this, Walter Williams must explain it using
terms and concepts a ten yeaar-old can grasp...sometimes.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:735c640ba893b@uwe...
> gatt wrote:

> I don't defend Enron, but am also not entirely sympathetic to those who
> "lost their whole retirement nestegg". I saw a lot of news stories
> about
> these unfortunate folks, but never heard a reporter ask them the obvious
> question. "Why would a sane person invest their entire retirement nestegg
> in
> one company's stock?". Enron employees were not required to buy Enron
> stock in their retirement plans. They did so because of one reason.
> Greed.
> They wanted to make high double and triple digit returns on their
> investments
> and threw caution and common sense out the window.
>
> Enron was most definitely a scam, but common sense goes a long way
> towards
> minimizing the effect of any one bad apple on one's retirement portfolio.
>

Enron was hoping to corner the Carbon Credits market, and, as such, were BIG
promoters of Kyoto and it's biggest US champion (guess who).

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 7, 10:32 am, "gatt" > wrote:
>> "M" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>> > I agree with you that high gasoline price maximizes oil company
>> > profit. However as a pilot you can easily hedge on that by buying oil
>> > company stock,
>>
>> And if you pay the mob, thugs won't keep trashing your store.
>>
>> >I'm quite certain that I made far more from the oil companies than what
>> >I
>> >paid
>> > extra for the fuel, and I only have a small part of my 401k in the
>> > energy sector.
>>
>> I have an ethical problem with the idea that the way to combat corrupt
>> practices and preditorial pricing--which hurts the American economy--is
>> to
>> invest in it.
>>
>> Sorry. My conscience prevents me from doing that.
>>
>> -c
>
> There's nothing predatory about it. We have about the cheapest gas in
> the developed world, by far.

And the "high profits" go a long way to insure we continue to have "cheap
gas".

> They don't come get your money--you drive to them and willingly give
> it to them, generally in an inefficient car that has more available
> horsepower than a small airplane and more cupholders than a country
> bar.

I use my SUV to go to the corner store to buy tooth picks...one at a time.


> The American economy has been hurt by its becoming drunk on cheap
> energy instead of learning to do things efficiently, in terms of
> outright efficiency as well as lifestyle.

In the US, fuel consumption per GDP is down; everywhere else it's UP.

>Hangovers hurt, but they do
> serve their purpose.

Maybe to go and get more petrol.

We could produce ten times more than we could "conserve".


>

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "gatt" >
>
>>Ah, yeah. All the people talking about it all the time aren't really
>>concerned.
>
> No they're not.
> ****ing and moaning has become the National Hobby.

And making excuses is becoming it's most prolific National Industry.

[Paul kgyy]

> Will it really peak in 5 years? I think not. Google Thomas Gold and
> non-biogenic oil and you will find that the party line may not be
> true.

Not sure about the peak - depends on how good the reserve estimates of
the Saudis are, but then we know they never lie, do they?

Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle were astronomers who between them came up
with a number of pretty wild ideas, one of which was that Venus would
turn out to be solid petrocarbons. So far, apparently Sweden has
actually found 80 barrels of oil in their test of Gold's hypothesis
after spending $$millions of dollars drilling in crystalline rock.
But the source of that 80 barrels might just be percolation from
nearby oilbearing strata.

Would you feel any better if production peaks in 10 years instead of 5
in the face of increasing demand?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Paul kgyy wrote:
>> Will it really peak in 5 years? I think not. Google Thomas Gold and
>> non-biogenic oil and you will find that the party line may not be
>> true.
>
> Not sure about the peak - depends on how good the reserve estimates of
> the Saudis are, but then we know they never lie, do they?
>
> Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle were astronomers who between them came up
> with a number of pretty wild ideas, one of which was that Venus would
> turn out to be solid petrocarbons. So far, apparently Sweden has
> actually found 80 barrels of oil in their test of Gold's hypothesis
> after spending $$millions of dollars drilling in crystalline rock.
> But the source of that 80 barrels might just be percolation from
> nearby oilbearing strata.
>
> Would you feel any better if production peaks in 10 years instead of 5
> in the face of increasing demand?

No, but with increases in drilling technology that number might well be 100
years.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 8, 1:54 pm, Paul kgyy > wrote:
> > Will it really peak in 5 years? I think not. Google Thomas Gold and
> > non-biogenic oil and you will find that the party line may not be
> > true.
>
> Not sure about the peak - depends on how good the reserve estimates of
> the Saudis are, but then we know they never lie, do they?
>
> Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle were astronomers who between them came up
> with a number of pretty wild ideas, one of which was that Venus would
> turn out to be solid petrocarbons. So far, apparently Sweden has
> actually found 80 barrels of oil in their test of Gold's hypothesis
> after spending $$millions of dollars drilling in crystalline rock.
> But the source of that 80 barrels might just be percolation from
> nearby oilbearing strata.
>
> Would you feel any better if production peaks in 10 years instead of 5
> in the face of increasing demand?

The amount of oil wasn't the point, the fact that there were 80
barrels of oil in what has been considered non-oil bearing rock
(granite) at a depth where it shouldn't be is a strong support for the
non-biogenic theory. Russia looked at the results of this experiment
and decided to explore the Dneiper river basin, a place where
conventional theory said oil wouldn't be likely. That basin is now
the largest oil producing field in all of Russia. There is a
technical paper written by a couple of Russian petroleum engineers on
this topic that I have read, it is very interesting.

Western oil companies continue to publicly poo-poo the non-biogenic
theory, but the Russians seem to have adopted it.

Coal is clearly biogenic, but there is a lot of coal in the world
which can account for ancient plant and animal life trapped in the
earth. Oil comes from very deep down, and it is harder to believe
that dead plants and animals could be responsible for all that oil at
such great depths. The recent findings that the oil in one of the
Gulf of Mexico fields was being replenished from a deeper source via a
fault line (reported in the Wall Street Journal) also tends to support
this theory.

Thomas Gold was right about the composition of the surface of the
moon, and of the nature of pulsars, and has been right about a lot of
other things that were initially considered far out. Time will tell,
but I think there is a lot of merit in the non-biogenic theory.

While people believe that the supply of oil is very limited, the
prices will remain high. If it is found that the supply is way
underestimated, the value of the oil will drop (standard commodity
rules apply) which is not in the best interest of the oil companies or
OPEC. I expect that we will be told that the oil supply will peak in
5 years for at least the next 100 years. It will just always be 5
years away from whatever day they happen to say it.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow" <> wrote >

>Or do you just puke back the MSM/Public School drivel?

Seems like you are the one fixated on blaming the Publik Skools for all of
the problems in our country.

You need to see some help about this problem.
--
Jim in NC

[gatt]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...

>> There's nothing predatory about it. We have about the cheapest gas in
>> the developed world, by far.

Nonsequitor. We also have some of the greatest freedoms and civil rights in
the world but by and large we wouldn't allow that to be used as justfication
for infringement upon them.



-c

[gatt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

>> Ah, yeah. All the people talking about it all the time aren't really
>> concerned.
>
> Sure they are talking about it. But when push comes to shove they still
> drive the same way they did when gas was 1.50/gal.

No they don't. For instance: General aviation. Pretty soon, only the
wealthy will be able to afford it. That will hurt the folks making $25,000
teaching them to fly, and the businesses that are struggling to make ends
meet, but it sure won't hurt the super wealthy.

At 10gph, I'd fly a hell of a lot more if fuel was 1.50/gallon. To me this
seems abundantly obvious.


-c

[Gig 601XL Builder]

gatt wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> Ah, yeah. All the people talking about it all the time aren't
>>> really concerned.
>>
>> Sure they are talking about it. But when push comes to shove they
>> still drive the same way they did when gas was 1.50/gal.
>
> No they don't. For instance: General aviation. Pretty soon, only
> the wealthy will be able to afford it. That will hurt the folks
> making $25,000 teaching them to fly, and the businesses that are
> struggling to make ends meet, but it sure won't hurt the super
> wealthy.
> At 10gph, I'd fly a hell of a lot more if fuel was 1.50/gallon. To
> me this seems abundantly obvious.
>
>


They did this past holiday weekend. The downward trend in GA since the 70's
is not inline with the price of gas. Something else is at work there and
until the aviation community figures out what it is the trend will continue.

[gatt]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...

> The economy is suffering? The DJIA is in record territory.
>
> Hey, how about you quit sucking the gub'mint peepee

Excuse me? I'm sorry, I guess I expected better from this forum. But in
case anybody else is interested, check this out:

"The latest spike in fuel costs is putting the squeeze on Puget Sound
transportation companies, which are passing along the cost to customers if
they can.
As of April 19, a gallon of regular gasoline cost on average about $2.09
along the West Coast, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. That's an
18-cent-per-gallon increase from a year ago. The U.S. average was $1.81 a
gallon, an increase of about 24 cents from a year ago. "

$2.09 a gallon! The horror. Of course, the article is old: April 2004.
What I'd like to know (from somebody who isn't a stock holder making
generalizations about "sucking the gub'mint peepee") is,

How come gas prices have nearly doubled since April 2004. What? Did a war
break out? A sudden oil crisis? Did the worldwide demand for oil suddenly
double? Did Katrina wipe out half the world's refineries?

What happened? What excuse are we all going to accept for the cost of fuel
doubling since 2004 while oil industries make record profits (and complain
about how expensive it is to build refineries) and people continue to
pretend that it doesn't somehow effect the entire economy?

>(and, yes, half of fuel taxes goes into the general toilet...I

That's right. Blame the government. LOOK OVER THERE, EVERYBODY, AND PRETEND
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PRICE OF A BARREL OF OIL!

-c

[gatt]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...

> This, one can thnk for mental midgets like "gatt" and a couple generations
> of publik skool grauites. For this, Walter Williams must explain it using
> terms and concepts a ten yeaar-old can grasp...sometimes.

Wow. Well, I was hoping for an intelligent debate that might dampen my
convictions a little, but instead I got attacked personally by somebody who,
by noticeable coincidence, is an oil industry investor.

Go figure. And rants about "publik skools" and the government to boot.
Unfortunately I'm not longer surprised by this sort of ad hominem behavior
from oil industry types, and it has only deepened my conviction that they
are greedy and intellectually dishonest.

If I want to be attacked by anti-American oil whores I'll go to Yemen.
*plonk*

-c

[gatt]

"BDS" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "gatt" > wrote
>
>> Ah. Okay, so everybody's hollering about the price of gasoline because
>> there's nothing better to do. Thanks for clearing that up.
>
> They complain, but they don't curtail their use much, if at all. What
> does
> that tell you?

Not as much as this. The sun doesn't rise and fall on recreational gas
users:
"Meanwhile, the cost of diesel fuel continues to head upward, with a gallon
costing on average $2.11 along the West Coast this week. The U.S. average
was about $1.72 a gallon. In West Coast states, diesel has increased about 9
cents a gallon in the past week and about 51 cents a gallon from a year ago.

Trucking companies are feeling the pinch.

"It's eating them alive," said Jim Tutton, vice president of the Washington
Trucking Associations, a Federal Way-based trade group that represents about
900 members, with 70 percent of them in the Puget Sound region.

Long-haulers are feeling more pain, but rising fuel prices also hurt
short-haulers, said Ed Vander Pol, president of Oak Harbor Freight Lines, an
Auburn-based trucking company with about 500 trucks rolling in five Western
states.

Vander Pol said his fuel costs for January and February of this year were $1
million. That was about $35,000 more than the company spent during first two
months of 2003, based on the same amount of revenue. Vander Pol said his
company is tacking on an 8 percent fuel surcharge, the highest he has ever
charged.

"With the margins we have, there's no way we can swallow that. We have to
pass it on," said Vander Pol, whose trucks haul clothing for retailers, such
as Gap, and also haul tires, building materials and other products for other
customers.
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2004/04/26/story2.html


>> The oil industry is making record profits in the history of the world.
>> All anybody is asking them to do is not make so much so that America
>> isn't the
>> loser.
>
> Their shareholders love them for it.

"All anybody is asking them to do is not make so much so that America isn't
the loser."

I find your prioritization of shareholders over Americans illuminating.

-c

[gatt]

"Ken Finney" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm not very familiar with larger FBOs, but smaller FBOs have pretty much
> been a disaster zone since 1947. What was that line from "The Grapes of
> Wrath"? "People shouldn't have to live like that." "Them aren't people,
> them's Okies." Just substitute "FBOs" for "Okies".

Ah.

So basically you're suggesting that FBO owners aren't people. Interesting
forum to make such an observation.


-c
(But, I think everybody getting used to those sorts of comments when you
challenge big oil and their pricing schemes.)

[John Galban]

On Jun 7, 3:15 pm, "gatt" > wrote:
> "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in messagenews:735c640ba893b@uwe...
>
> > I don't defend Enron, but am also not entirely sympathetic to those who
> > "lost their whole retirement nestegg". I saw a lot of news stories
> > about
> > these unfortunate folks, but never heard a reporter ask them the obvious
> > question. "Why would a sane person invest their entire retirement nestegg
> > in
> > one company's stock?".
>
> Because they trusted the company they'd worked for for so long, before Enron
> bought it, and none of them expected that the company would be acquired and
> destroyed by felons.

That's a pretty lame investment strategy. All of us learn from
an early age not to put all our eggs in one basket. Blind trust in a
corporation seems rather naive. Who exactly are you trusting? A
corporation is not a person.
>
> Sort of like how my father trusted United before they furloughed him a year
> before his retirement and then annihilated his pension. (But don't worry,
> the taxpayers will handle that burden. )

Your father didn't have a choice. A company pension plan is not
the same as a 401K. The Enron folks had numerous choices for
investment of their savings. Enron stock was just one of them.
>
> > Enron employees were not required to buy Enron stock in their retirement
> > plans. They did so because of one reason. Greed.
>
> Is that why people buy XOM stock? Greed?

If you put your whole nestegg into XOM hoping to make a quick
killing, rather than choosing a well diversified portfolio that will
generate a safer, more modest return, yes. You have no one to blame
but yourself. You might as well take your life savings and drop it on
the roulette table in Vegas.

>
> > Enron was most definitely a scam, but common sense goes a long way
> > towards
> > minimizing the effect of any one bad apple on one's retirement portfolio.
>
> How is that relevant to corporate corruption?

It is only relevant to comments such as your previous one about your
neighbor the electrician. I have a relative that was a 25 yr. Enron
employee who did not lose his life savings. Before the collapse, his
coworkers made fun of him for not shifting his entire portfolio to
Enron stock and making easy money.

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

[gatt]

> They did this past holiday weekend. The downward trend in GA since the
> 70's is not inline with the price of gas. Something else is at work there
> and until the aviation community figures out what it is the trend will
> continue.

Yeah, but, I still want to know why the cost of gas has doubled since 2004.
No new war, Katrina didn't wipe out -that- much...

Doubled. It's fishy.

I just want to know why. But when I ask the question, I get attacked
personally for it. That tells me all I need to know right there.

-c

[Ken Finney]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ken Finney" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I'm not very familiar with larger FBOs, but smaller FBOs have pretty much
>> been a disaster zone since 1947. What was that line from "The Grapes of
>> Wrath"? "People shouldn't have to live like that." "Them aren't people,
>> them's Okies." Just substitute "FBOs" for "Okies".
>
> Ah.
>
> So basically you're suggesting that FBO owners aren't people.
> Interesting forum to make such an observation.
>
>

Sorry, it wasn't intended that way. There does seem to be a genetic thing;
those that have the aviation gene don't seem to be very good at business.
There are exceptions, but most of the people that I've met that run small
FBOs do it for the love of aviation, not because they make a good living at
it. That was my connection to the Okies, not that the Okies were "bad", but
that the deck was stacked against them. From everything I've seen, the deck
is stacked against small FBOs as well. Pretty sad, really. I honesty think
if I won the lottery, I'd buy/start an FBO. But I'd only be able to keep it
until the money ran out. ;^)

[gatt]

>> > Enron employees were not required to buy Enron stock in their
>> > retirement
>> > plans. They did so because of one reason. Greed.
>>
>> Is that why people buy XOM stock? Greed?
>
> If you put your whole nestegg into XOM hoping to make a quick
> killing, rather than choosing a well diversified portfolio that will
> generate a safer, more modest return, yes. You have no one to blame
> but yourself.

Is XOM stock suffering now or something? Let me guess...high fuel prices
and low demand are cutting into Exxon-Mobile profits.

-c

[gatt]

"Ken Finney" > wrote in message
...

>> So basically you're suggesting that FBO owners aren't people. Interesting
>> forum to make such an observation.
>>
> Sorry, it wasn't intended that way.

*nod* Thanks for the clarification.

> There are exceptions, but most of the people that I've met that run small
> FBOs do it for the love of aviation, not because they make a good living
> at it.

I'm not sure how that gene works. The really fancy FBO across the airport
with the newer, larger fleet -seems- to be getting its ass kicked by the FBO
I fly out of, which has an older fleet that doesn't bear the company name or
anything. The FBO I use has been there a long time, acquiring better
airport location, more aircraft, a new $250,000 TruFlight sim and...
hmmm... the fuel operation for the airport.

> I honesty think if I won the lottery, I'd buy/start an FBO. But I'd only
> be able to keep it until the money ran out. ;^)

A commuter airline just started down in Salem. Hasn't been commuter service
there for many years. Best of luck to 'em, but I don't see they're gonna
make it.

-c

[BDS]

"gatt" > wrote

> I find your prioritization of shareholders over Americans illuminating.

Weren't you the one complaining about personal attacks? - and then this?

Look, many of the shareholders are Americans, probably millions of them.
Like I said before, it's not the Evil Oil Empire, it's your friends and
neighbors. If you own any mutual funds you probably have stock in some of
these companies yourself.

Did you notice in the article you quoted that the truckers are passing the
increased fuel costs along to their customers? That being the case, how is
the cost of fuel eating them alive?

Business is business. If you want to be successful you need to realize that
the price of a product is not determined by what it costs to make it.

BDS

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"gatt" > wrote:

> At 10gph, I'd fly a hell of a lot more if fuel was 1.50/gallon. To me this
> seems abundantly obvious.

otoh - at 8.5 gph, fuel costs have no impact on my ability to fly. Heck, my
flying budget has seen more flexibility since I moved out of a hangar (at
$505/month) to a tie-down at $50/month. That $455/month pays for
a LOT of fuel.

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

[[email protected]]

On Jun 8, 11:03 am, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:

> I use my SUV to go to the corner store to buy tooth picks...one at a time.

I'd like to think that this was sarcasm, but I'm afraid you might be
telling the truth.


> In the US, fuel consumption per GDP is down; everywhere else it's UP.

Maybe. But lowering consumption from a ridiculous high level might
leave you still much higher than someone else who rose from a low
level. (i.e. if you go from 100 to 98 on some scale, you're still
higher than someone who went from 10 to 20.)

> >Hangovers hurt, but they do
> > serve their purpose.
>
> Maybe to go and get more petrol.
>
> We could produce ten times more than we could "conserve".

Perhaps, but that not the point. To do so would only hasten the
consumption of what is left, and reduce the time for conversion to
some sustainable alternative.
It also adds a bunch of pollution.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 8, 1:07 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:

> > Would you feel any better if production peaks in 10 years instead of 5
> > in the face of increasing demand?
>
> No, but with increases in drilling technology that number might well be 100
> years.

Or not.....
If there are 100 years of production, we might have enough time to
find alternative somethings.
If there are substantially fewer years, worst case we are already in
deep doo-doo.

So, ya feel lucky???? Or do you think that working on conservation
and increased efficiency might be a good idea. After all, there is no
downside to using less fuel to do the same thing now, is there?

[[email protected]]

On Jun 8, 2:24 pm, "gatt" > wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in ...
>
> >> Ah, yeah. All the people talking about it all the time aren't really
> >> concerned.
>
> > Sure they are talking about it. But when push comes to shove they still
> > drive the same way they did when gas was 1.50/gal.
>
> No they don't. For instance: General aviation. Pretty soon, only the
> wealthy will be able to afford it. That will hurt the folks making $25,000
> teaching them to fly, and the businesses that are struggling to make ends
> meet, but it sure won't hurt the super wealthy.
>
> At 10gph, I'd fly a hell of a lot more if fuel was 1.50/gallon. To me this
> seems abundantly obvious.
>
> -c

I too am a pilot. Aviation, even in the US, has it's challenges.
Fuel price is only one of many. We would be better off if we could
get rid of the LL and use only autogas. That alone would lower the
price appreciably.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 8, 3:27 pm, "gatt" > wrote:
> "Ken Finney" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > I'm not very familiar with larger FBOs, but smaller FBOs have pretty much
> > been a disaster zone since 1947. What was that line from "The Grapes of
> > Wrath"? "People shouldn't have to live like that." "Them aren't people,
> > them's Okies." Just substitute "FBOs" for "Okies".
>
> Ah.
>
> So basically you're suggesting that FBO owners aren't people. Interesting
> forum to make such an observation.
>
> -c
> (But, I think everybody getting used to those sorts of comments when you
> challenge big oil and their pricing schemes.)

PHOOOM! I think his point went flying right over your head. Please
re-read.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 8, 2:19 pm, "gatt" > wrote:
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> There's nothing predatory about it. We have about the cheapest gas in
> >> the developed world, by far.
>
> Nonsequitor. We also have some of the greatest freedoms and civil rights in
> the world but by and large we wouldn't allow that to be used as justfication
> for infringement upon them.
>
> -c


What's the infringement???? I buy all the gas I choose to buy!
You want gas? Buy it at the posted price. As long as there is not
outright collusion between suppliers (frequently accused but never
demonstrated), they can ask any price they desire. You can buy it, or
not. Your choice. Your freedom.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"gatt" > wrote > Yeah, but, I still want to know why the cost of gas has
doubled since 2004.
> No new war, Katrina didn't wipe out -that- much...
>
> Doubled. It's fishy.

I don't agree with much of what you say, but I'm with you on this one.

I'm not a Bush Basher, anti oil company, or anything along those lines.

Where is the justification for the prices, other than the fact that gas (and
all oil energy supplies) is NECESSARY to our lives.

It is like a monopoly, but nobody gives a crap, and goes wink-wink, as
prices rise.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"gatt" <> wrote

> "Meanwhile, the cost of diesel fuel continues to head upward, with a
> gallon costing on average $2.11 along the West Coast this week. The U.S.
> average was about $1.72 a gallon. In West Coast states, diesel has
> increased about 9 cents a gallon in the past week and about 51 cents a
> gallon from a year ago.
>
> Trucking companies are feeling the pinch.

Is diesel fuel that much cheaper at truck stops, and such?

I saw diesel at wally world (about the cheapest place for gas around here)
just a day or two ago, and it was $2.78.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 8, 1:07 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>> > Would you feel any better if production peaks in 10 years instead of 5
>> > in the face of increasing demand?
>>
>> No, but with increases in drilling technology that number might well be
>> 100
>> years.
>
> Or not.....
> If there are 100 years of production, we might have enough time to
> find alternative somethings.

Think of technology 100 years ago. Understand, too, that our biggest gains
are in the past generation and technology is accellerating. Geometrically,
not linerally.

> Okay,
> If there are substantially fewer years, worst case we are already in
> deep doo-doo.
>
> So, ya feel lucky???? Or do you think that working on conservation
> and increased efficiency might be a good idea.

Given what I pointed out above, I'd say you're full of poop.

> After all, there is no
> downside to using less fuel to do the same thing now, is there?

Depends on what you cut. BTU's per $GNP has been falling for 20 years.

Fuel use is motive and it's that factor that moves our economy, our
prosperity, and our well being.

There is so much induced waste that could be eliminated, but it would
require politicians and bureaucrats to get off their asses.

Having said that, I notice a lot of people hotrodding away from traffic
lights. At the same time, I see cities and towns stiffling traffic flows to
produce traffic fine revenue and gridlock. In case you haven't figured that
last one, inducing gridlock gives the bureaucrats a great media ploy for for
money, resources, authority.

I'll mention (again) that studies going wayyyy back have shown we waste 15%
and more of our fuel with streets clogged due to fouled traffic controls.
That doesn;t even bring into account the tens of thousands killed due to
poorly planned/executed systems.

If you answer to nothing above, answer just this: given governments
propensity to create shortages, what would you propose?

I'm guessing more government regulation and coersion. See my remarks about
"gridlock" above.


--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 8, 11:03 am, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
>
>> I use my SUV to go to the corner store to buy tooth picks...one at a
>> time.
>
> I'd like to think that this was sarcasm, but I'm afraid you might be
> telling the truth.

Then you're an idiot not worth discussing serious issues with.

[FLUSH}

[[email protected]]

On Jun 8, 9:11 pm, "Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> Think of technology 100 years ago. Understand, too, that our biggest gains
> are in the past generation and technology is accellerating. Geometrically,
> not linerally.

Certainly our technology has grown in a century.
However, frequently in the past, civilizations and societies have
collapsed because they have outstripped the natural resources upon
which they depended. Maybe water, maybe wood, whatever.
It can happen again. But now it could also be widespread, as in
worldwide, because of our communications and transportation links.
(Refer for example, to Jared Diamonds very readable book "Collapse",
about the way civilizations fall.)
I'm surely optimistic that we can avoid major problems, by more
quickly developing solar, etc. However, if we don't there could be
huge problems. Primarily I am aware that huge amounts of (primarily)
oil allow us to get food and water to cities. RAPIDLY cut the oil,
and stuff can't get in and people can't get out. Food production
itself is highly oil-dependent.


> Given what I pointed out above, I'd say you're full of poop.
I doubt that. But given the enormous stakes, I would hope we do
enough soon enough to avoid the major problems.
> > After all, there is no
> > downside to using less fuel to do the same thing now, is there?
>
> Depends on what you cut. BTU's per $GNP has been falling for 20 years.
>
> Fuel use is motive and it's that factor that moves our economy, our
> prosperity, and our well being.
>
> There is so much induced waste that could be eliminated, but it would
> require politicians and bureaucrats to get off their asses.
They want to stay in office. They will primarily support what we want
them to. And most of the citizenry in this country don't care.
Furthermore, we can act without them. I work to lower my power and
water use, but my neighbors and some family think I'm crazy. They
might be right, but efficiency and conservation are still excellent,
immediately available, low-tech, low-investment ways to stretch our
resources until alternatives are more accepted.

> Having said that, I notice a lot of people hotrodding away from traffic
> lights. At the same time, I see cities and towns stiffling traffic flows to
> produce traffic fine revenue and gridlock. In case you haven't figured that
> last one, inducing gridlock gives the bureaucrats a great media ploy for for
> money, resources, authority.
I might agree with your "result" but not generally with your motive.
There's just a heckuva lotta cars out there.
Refer to rec.autos.driving for a whole lotta people who agree with
your government conspiracy ideas.

> If you answer to nothing above, answer just this: given governments
> propensity to create shortages, what would you propose?
> I'm guessing more government regulation and coersion. See my remarks about
> "gridlock" above.
Not so much MORE regulation, as a shift in what they do, to things
that make more sense.

1. Stop subsidizing energy and resource consumption.
2. Shift some tax burden to fossil energy consumption, and use the
funds to subsidize clean energy, such as solar. (A side benefit of
having solar panels on every house is that the generation is
distributed, and therefore less susceptible to disaster/sabotage/
terrorist events.) Note that I don't want more total tax, just a
shift.
3. Very gradually, but persistently, raise the taxes on gas and
diesel. Use the proceeds to correct the diminishing road funds (they
need to be corrected for inflation), and make sensible fuel-efficient
mass transit. Make it clear that this will happen so that people and
companies can make plans and develop alternatives in good order.
4. Plan cities so that people can live, work, and shop all in close
proximity. We are currently forced to drive to get just a quart of
milk. Many standards actually preclude people from doing this. A few
cities are wising up.
5. Raise the energy standards for home construction. I live in
Phoenix, and the walls in this oven have the same insulation standard
as coastal California: R13 batts from the 1950s, improperly
installed. Raise the minimum standards for air conditioning
efficiency. Most homes being built here now could not be designed to
consume MORE energy if you really tried.
I firmly believe that we could reduce out energy consumption by about
50% with little or no real change in lifestyle. But here energy is so
cheap that we don't care.

> Matt Barrow
> Performace Homes, LLC.
> Cheyenne, WY

[[email protected]]

On Jun 9, 12:24 am, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> > On Jun 8, 11:03 am, "Matt Barrow" >
> > wrote:
>
> >> I use my SUV to go to the corner store to buy tooth picks...one at a
> >> time.
>
> > I'd like to think that this was sarcasm, but I'm afraid you might be
> > telling the truth.
>
> Then you're an idiot not worth discussing serious issues with.
>
> [FLUSH}

Hmm. Perhaps I shoulda put the smiley in there; I didn't think it was
necessary. You didn't put one in your comment either.
Then again, I've seen lots of large vehicles idling for the longest
time in parking lots, on very nice days. Out there SOMEwhere is a
person who WOULD do something as stupid as buy toothpicks one at a
time.

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> ... and make sensible fuel-efficient
> mass transit.

I wonder if the people who are so hot for user fees for us rich pilots
and aircraft owners also support mass transit that is self-funding.

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

[Cubdriver]

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:37:22 -0700, wrote:

>(Refer for example, to Jared Diamonds very readable book "Collapse",
>about the way civilizations fall.)

It's certainly very readable, but I happened to read it after visiting
Greenland and reading everything I could lay my hands on about the
Norse settlements in the southwest of the island. (They existed from
about 900 to about 1300, during the Medaeval Warm Period, however
spelled.) My conclusion was that Mr Diamond didn't have a clue what he
was talking about. He was just trying to stuff the Norse into a
formula he'd already created.

The Norse ran sheep and cattle in Greenland, and they survived as long
as they had contact with Europe. But about 1300 the North Sea iced up,
the Inuit moved south, and the climate of Greenland got too cold to
support a European lifestyle. There was probably also some erosion
caused by the Norse. Anyhow, they died out. But here's the kicker:

The Danish/Greenland government in the 1950s successfully
re-introduced sheep to the southwest, and within the past ten years
they've been able to re-introduce cattle. So if there is indeed global
warming, what it has created so far--at least in the semi-Arctic
north--is a climate very like that of Europe in the year 1000.
(Apparently the records aren't good enough to say "the world".)



Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

[[email protected]]

On Jun 9, 7:41 pm, wrote:
> On Jun 9, 12:24 am, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> > > On Jun 8, 11:03 am, "Matt Barrow" >
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> I use my SUV to go to the corner store to buy tooth picks...one at a
> > >> time.
>
> > > I'd like to think that this was sarcasm, but I'm afraid you might be
> > > telling the truth.
>
> > Then you're an idiot not worth discussing serious issues with.
>
> > [FLUSH}
>
> Hmm. Perhaps I shoulda put the smiley in there; I didn't think it was
> necessary. You didn't put one in your comment either.
> Then again, I've seen lots of large vehicles idling for the longest
> time in parking lots, on very nice days. Out there SOMEwhere is a
> person who WOULD do something as stupid as buy toothpicks one at a
> time.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Don't worry, Matt Barrow is just an ass...

[[email protected]]

On Jun 10, 10:54 am, wrote:
> On Jun 9, 7:41 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 12:24 am, "Matt Barrow" >
> > wrote:
>
> > > > wrote in message
>
> > ups.com...
>
> > > > On Jun 8, 11:03 am, "Matt Barrow" >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > >> I use my SUV to go to the corner store to buy tooth picks...one at a
> > > >> time.
>
> > > > I'd like to think that this was sarcasm, but I'm afraid you might be
> > > > telling the truth.
>
> > > Then you're an idiot not worth discussing serious issues with.
>
> > > [FLUSH}
>
> > Hmm. Perhaps I shoulda put the smiley in there; I didn't think it was
> > necessary. You didn't put one in your comment either.
> > Then again, I've seen lots of large vehicles idling for the longest
> > time in parking lots, on very nice days. Out there SOMEwhere is a
> > person who WOULD do something as stupid as buy toothpicks one at a
> > time.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Don't worry, Matt Barrow is just an ass...

He probably thinks that of me as well.
We might both be right...

[[email protected]]

On Jun 10, 5:31 am, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote:

> The Danish/Greenland government in the 1950s successfully
> re-introduced sheep to the southwest, and within the past ten years
> they've been able to re-introduce cattle. So if there is indeed global
> warming, what it has created so far--at least in the semi-Arctic
> north--is a climate very like that of Europe in the year 1000.
> (Apparently the records aren't good enough to say "the world".)


I've yet to finish the book completely--I loaned it to someone else
while I read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by the same guy.
In general, Diamond writes about various reasons for societal
collapse, and resource depletion is a common cause. Climate change,
such as drought (and cooling) also figure in to human history.
But I don't recall that "global warming" in today's sense was what he
was writing about. In any case it wasn't what "I" was intending to
introduce. The thread started--and seems to be--about gas prices and
running out of fossil fuels. (Global warming is an intelligent topic
that has been politicized to the lowest common denominator. I go
there only with fear.)

Regardless of whether or not fossil fuel use contributes to global
warming, the use also has a number of other downsides, including
pollution. The likely remedy for ANY of the supposed problems is
about the same: conserve and increase efficiency.

The biggest problem I am addressing is the depletion of the resource,
and the idea that this depletion could occur relatively suddenly. We
can delay/soften this through efficiency and conservation, and this
would give time for alternatives to be brought up to speed.

The added problem today is that, if there is a serious fossil fuel
catastrophe, it will be world-wide instead of local. Climate changes
benefit some humans even as it harms others. Fossil fuel depletion
with have global impact, because of the dependence on it for food/
water creation and distribution. The humans who would be least harmed
are those who are currently more on a subsistence level, and fairly
independent of world trade. (I'm not an alarmist, and I'm not
predicting this. It is a worst-case, and possible, scenario.)

To keep this in the newsgroup, if gas gets really expensive, soaring
will be the way to go. Hitch up the horses and have them run really
fast! (Soaring is great NOW, too!)

BTW, (since you brought it up), I just yesterday saw an article about
Greenland. Seems that the few degrees of warming is allowing the cod
to come back to Greenland fairly strongly. But the shrimp will
probably go away. It has to do with changing ocean temps in that
area.