PHIL BOYER: 40% OF AOPA MEMBERS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASING THEIR FLYING DUE TO FUEL PRICES

[Larry Dighera]

While I have mixed feelings about the current run-up in automobile and
aviation fuel prices, I can see where increased fuel costs are going
to significantly impact recreational GA flying operations. The high
price of maintaining flying currency for private pilots has always
been a deterrent to participation, but now, with little in the way of
wage increases for the past several years, and the ever increasing
number and size of Temporary Flight Restrictions, the doubling of fuel
prices over the last year or so can only contribute to the declining
number of GA flights. But AOPA has a plan to swell the ranks of
private pilots and the resources to implement it.


Exclusive Audio Interviews from the AOPA Fly-In

PHIL BOYER: 40% OF AOPA MEMBERS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASING THEIR
FLYING DUE TO FUEL PRICES
(http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080609&kw=AVwebAudio)
AVweb's Mary Grady was on location covering AOPA's annual fly-in
and open house in Frederick, Md., on Saturday. Mary brought her
recorder along and caught up with AOPA President Phil Boyer, who
commented on a range of topics, including the latest on user fees
and AOPA research on skyrocketing fuel prices and their bearing on
members' flying activities and new pilot starts.

Click here

(http://www.avweb.com/podcast/files/2008-06-09_PhilBoyer_AOPAFlyIn.mp3)
to download. (12.8 MB, 14:00)

[Peter Clark]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:46:35 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>
>While I have mixed feelings about the current run-up in automobile and
>aviation fuel prices, I can see where increased fuel costs are going
>to significantly impact recreational GA flying operations. The high
>price of maintaining flying currency for private pilots has always
>been a deterrent to participation, but now, with little in the way of
>wage increases for the past several years, and the ever increasing
>number and size of Temporary Flight Restrictions, the doubling of fuel
>prices over the last year or so can only contribute to the declining
>number of GA flights. But AOPA has a plan to swell the ranks of
>private pilots and the resources to implement it.
>
>
> Exclusive Audio Interviews from the AOPA Fly-In
>
> PHIL BOYER: 40% OF AOPA MEMBERS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASING THEIR
>FLYING DUE TO FUEL PRICES
> (http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080609&kw=AVwebAudio)
> AVweb's Mary Grady was on location covering AOPA's annual fly-in
> and open house in Frederick, Md., on Saturday. Mary brought her
> recorder along and caught up with AOPA President Phil Boyer, who
> commented on a range of topics, including the latest on user fees
> and AOPA research on skyrocketing fuel prices and their bearing on
> members' flying activities and new pilot starts.
>
> Click here
>
>(http://www.avweb.com/podcast/files/2008-06-09_PhilBoyer_AOPAFlyIn.mp3)
>to download. (12.8 MB, 14:00)

Ya know, as BS as these oil and fuel prices are, it'll be fun to watch
the airlines continue to dance and wave at GA causing their delays and
other scheduling issues when significant portions of the GA fleet are
decreasing usage due to the cost and airlines themselves are slashing
their own schedules.

[kontiki[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> While I have mixed feelings about the current run-up in automobile and
> aviation fuel prices,

Why do you have mixed feelings about it? My feelings about it are not at
all mixed.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:42:56 -0400, Peter Clark
> wrote in
>:

>Ya know, as BS as these oil and fuel prices are, it'll be fun to watch
>the airlines continue to dance and wave at GA causing their delays and
>other scheduling issues when significant portions of the GA fleet are
>decreasing usage due to the cost and airlines themselves are slashing
>their own schedules.

Oh, the airline lobby will continue to push their ridiculous assertion
that GA is the source of the flying public's airline flight delays,
despite its absurdity, because the public is so uninformed and
apathetic that it will still resonate with them. And Congress will
continue to swallow it, because they dance to the tune ($) of the
lobbyists.

What the air carriers and airliner manufacturers actually object to,
IMO, are the former 1st-class corporate pax who have decided to switch
to fractional/charter GA flights rather than continue to be victims of
the TSA/DHS, and obscene airline scheduling practices, not
private/recreational operations.

I look for the dramatic increase in fuel prices to finally force
Congress and the president to implement a reasonable alternative
energy policy for our nation. That will be about the sole benefit
increased fuel prices will precipitate. I expect their effect on
price inflation, the value of the dollar, and civil unrest will be
devastating. And then there's the issue of nearly a trillion dollars
in credit card debt in the US. Defaults and personal bankruptcies
will be rampant. David Brooks mentioned debt recently:


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
...
The social norms and institutions that encouraged frugality and
spending what you earn have been undermined. The institutions that
encourage debt and living for the moment have been strengthened.
The country’s moral guardians are forever looking for decadence
out of Hollywood and reality TV. But the most rampant decadence
today is financial decadence, the trampling of decent norms about
how to use and harness money.

The deterioration of financial mores has meant two things. First,
it’s meant an explosion of debt that inhibits social mobility and
ruins lives. Between 1989 and 2001, credit-card debt nearly
tripled, soaring from $238 billion to $692 billion. By last year,
it was up to $937 billion, the report said.

Second, the transformation has led to a stark financial
polarization. On the one hand, there is what the report calls the
investor class. It has tax-deferred savings plans, as well as an
army of financial advisers. On the other hand, there is the
lottery class, people with little access to 401(k)’s or financial
planning but plenty of access to payday lenders, credit cards and
lottery agents. ... which some people call a tax on stupidity.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:11:12 -0400, kontiki >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> While I have mixed feelings about the current run-up in automobile and
>> aviation fuel prices,
>
>Why do you have mixed feelings about it?

Although I believe it will hurt a lot of workers and small businesses,
it should facilitate a more sound energy policy for our nation. It
will also make telecommuting and teleconferencing move into the
mainstream. That should have a positive effect on the environment,
but resourceful marketers and corporations may use the public's
distress as an excuse to build more nuclear and coal fired electrical
generating facilities, instead of moving toward wind and solar.


>My feelings about it are not at all mixed.

You probably have to drive a considerable distance to work every day.

[kontiki[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Although I believe it will hurt a lot of workers and small businesses,

Yeah, who cares about them.... they're just the backbone of the country.

> it should facilitate a more sound energy policy for our nation.

what energy policy? give us an example of one Larry. And don't use
the word 'they" because I hate that.

>It will also make telecommuting and teleconferencing move into the
> mainstream. That should have a positive effect on the environment,
> but resourceful marketers and corporations may use the public's
> distress as an excuse to build more nuclear and coal fired electrical
> generating facilities, instead of moving toward wind and solar.
>
>
>> My feelings about it are not at all mixed.
>
> You probably have to drive a considerable distance to work every day.
>

Wrong. I drive 9 miles to work, and usually drive my motorcycle
so I can handle it. I just think its stupid to bankrupt a nation
for the sake of a religion... and observe nation that *are* producing
energy soak up money from hard working Americans.... when it doesn't
have to be that way.

But hey... why should I care? I only drive a motorcycle 9 miles.
Screw everybody else. That's my energy policy.

[romeomike]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> You probably have to drive a considerable distance to work every day.
>

C,mon, It's a little more complex than the cost of driving to work.

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

kontiki schrieb:
> I just think its stupid to bankrupt a nation
> for the sake of a religion... and observe nation that *are* producing
> energy soak up money from hard working Americans.... when it doesn't
> have to be that way.

1) What do you want to do? It's their oil. For sure it is not yours or ours.
2) What will you/we (in 1 or in 10 or in 50 generations?) do when all
the oil is gone?

#m

[kontiki[_2_]]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> kontiki schrieb:
>> I just think its stupid to bankrupt a nation
>> for the sake of a religion... and observe nation that *are* producing
>> energy soak up money from hard working Americans.... when it doesn't
>> have to be that way.
>
> 1) What do you want to do? It's their oil. For sure it is not yours or
> ours.

Sir, the United States has lots of oil, coal and gas resources. We
siply do not exploit them as other countries do. We just pay through
nose and make them rich.... and they are very happy. They are buying
up property in the US as we speak with the wealth they obtain.

> 2) What will you/we (in 1 or in 10 or in 50 generations?) do when all
> the oil is gone?
>

Sir, yes, the oil (gas and coal) may perhaps be gone one day many years
hence. Hopefully we will have used what the sun provided in a wise way.
Either way, its there... in the earth. It is ours to be used for good
and to provide for a way of life. Other countries are utilizing their
resources rather effectively, wouldn't you say?

If the price of corn went up to $50 dollars an ear would you whine
and complain... starve yourself and say "the days of much corn are
gone, but that is good because the sun will burn out one day...."
or would you plant more corn and prosper?

[Vaughn Simon]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why do you have mixed feelings about it? My feelings about it are not at all
> mixed.

Obviously I hate to see good folks get hurt, and these fuel prices hurt our
entire economy.

On the other hand this will finally force us to use energy in a more rational
manner. For example; there is no reason why we should be commuting to work in
gas guzzlers. Have you noticed the difference in the car lots? I am finally
seeing more and more small cars displayed in the front row while the SUVs and
pickups are gradually being relegated to the back rows.

Vaughn

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 23:05:53 +0200, Martin Hotze >
wrote in >:

>kontiki schrieb:
>> I just think its stupid to bankrupt a nation
>> for the sake of a religion... and observe nation that *are* producing
>> energy soak up money from hard working Americans.... when it doesn't
>> have to be that way.
>
>1) What do you want to do? It's their oil. For sure it is not yours or ours.

While there is little doubt that OPEC is setting the price of their
product at the highest point they feel consumers can bear, that isn't
the real cause of the astronomical rise in prices. From what I've
heard, about 50% of the price of crude oil is the result of wall
street investors moving their wealth out of dollar denominated bonds
and other instruments (because of the threat of the dollar's continued
devaluation) and moving it into inflation-proof commodities (oil).
That creates an exaggerated demand, that raises oil prices, that
increases inflation, that further weakens the dollar, that .... So,
although OPEC naturally shares some of the blame for high fuel prices,
you can thank wall street brokers and wealthy investors for the lion
share of the price increase. And the Chevron/Exxon/Shell/BP/... are
raping, er.. reaping the benefit. So it would seem that we are the
victims of the wealthy and big business; what else is new?

>2) What will you/we (in 1 or in 10 or in 50 generations?) do when all
>the oil is gone?

Are you so naïve as to believe the public is capable of, or indeed
even interested in, thinking ahead and planning for the future? And
where is our governmental leadership in our time of need? They're
probably busy transferring their wealth into euros and inflation-proof
commodities. :-(

[kontiki[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> While there is little doubt that OPEC is setting the price of their
> product at the highest point they feel consumers can bear, that isn't
> the real cause of the astronomical rise in prices. From what I've
> heard, about 50% of the price of crude oil is the result of wall
> street investors moving their wealth out of dollar denominated bonds
> and other instruments (because of the threat of the dollar's continued
> devaluation) and moving it into inflation-proof commodities (oil).
> That creates an exaggerated demand, that raises oil prices, that
> increases inflation, that further weakens the dollar, that .... So,
> although OPEC naturally shares some of the blame for high fuel prices,
> you can thank wall street brokers and wealthy investors for the lion
> share of the price increase. And the Chevron/Exxon/Shell/BP/... are
> raping, er.. reaping the benefit. So it would seem that we are the
> victims of the wealthy and big business; what else is new?
>

Why should OPEC 'share some of the blame' for other people's stupidity?
The fact is that the value of the dollar is akin to the price of a stock
in a corporation. If you have *any* savvy at all in buying stock you
would know that you look at the fundamentals of a corporation to help
determine the value of its stock. Who are are the executives, what is
the corporate philosophy, do they have a sound plan for growth, and are
they trying to mitigate future obligations and exposures?

If you answer these question honestly you will see the reason for the
fall in value of the US dollar.

>> 2) What will you/we (in 1 or in 10 or in 50 generations?) do when all
>> the oil is gone?
>
> Are you so naïve as to believe the public is capable of, or indeed
> even interested in, thinking ahead and planning for the future? And
> where is our governmental leadership in our time of need? They're
> probably busy transferring their wealth into euros and inflation-proof
> commodities. :-(
>
>

I believe that those in power of the United States government do not
think those they rule are (to quote yourself..) "... capable of, or
indeed even interested in, thinking ahead and planning for the future?"

People like you, who blindly pay homage to those in government, are what
has brought us to this situation. That will change...

[Lou]

Isn't this the same arguments I heard 30 years ago?
Lou

[[email protected]]

Maybe if George Bush hadn't vetoed drilling in ANWR back in 1995 and
worked so hard to put so many areas off limits to drilling, we would
be swimming in oil now. I sure hope I get my share of the windfall
profit tax on the oil companies so I can spend $30-40,000 to put solar
panels on my house and fly my airplane more often, too.

DF

[[email protected]]

> uh, clinton was in office in 1995...

Really! Well, he and Dick Cheney must have put him up to it. Bill
was always looking out for the little guys.

DF

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Lou wrote:
>
> Isn't this the same arguments I heard 30 years ago?
>

Pretty much. A few days ago I heard Obama and McCain surrogates discussing
gasoline prices. The McCain surrogate advocated increased domestic oil
production and refining capacity. The Obama surrogate countered it would be
ten years before that had any effect and Americans wanted answers today.
The fact that the Democratic party has held that position since at least the
Carter administration was completely lost on him.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

wrote:
>
> Maybe if George Bush hadn't vetoed drilling in ANWR back in 1995 and
> worked so hard to put so many areas off limits to drilling, we would
> be swimming in oil now. I sure hope I get my share of the windfall
> profit tax on the oil companies so I can spend $30-40,000 to put solar
> panels on my house and fly my airplane more often, too.
>

How does the governor of Texas veto oil drilling in Alaska?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

wrote:
>
> Really! Well, he and Dick Cheney must have put him up to it. Bill
> was always looking out for the little guys.
>

Bill was always looking out for himself and never for anyone else.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> Isn't this the same arguments I heard 30 years ago?
>
>Pretty much. A few days ago I heard Obama and McCain surrogates discussing
>gasoline prices. The McCain surrogate advocated increased domestic oil
>production and refining capacity. The Obama surrogate countered it would be
>ten years before that had any effect and Americans wanted answers today.
>The fact that the Democratic party has held that position since at least the
>Carter administration was completely lost on him.

What I really fear is that some pandering politician (doesn't matter which
party) is going to attempt to regulate fuel prices in the U.S. It's bad
enough paying $4/gal, but it sure beats waiting in a line of 50 cars in order
to pay $3.80/gal. It was a dismal failure in the 70s, but it's not beyond
the realm of possiblility that some future president will revive the idea in
order to appear to be "doing something" about fuel prices. Much like some of
the ridiculous post-9/11 security measures.

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

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>While there is little doubt that OPEC is setting the price of their
>product at the highest point they feel consumers can bear, that isn't
>the real cause of the astronomical rise in prices. From what I've
>heard, about 50% of the price of crude oil is the result of wall
>street investors moving their wealth out of dollar denominated bonds
>and other instruments (because of the threat of the dollar's continued
>devaluation) and moving it into inflation-proof commodities (oil).
>That creates an exaggerated demand, that raises oil prices, that
>increases inflation, that further weakens the dollar, that .... So,
>although OPEC naturally shares some of the blame for high fuel prices,
>you can thank wall street brokers and wealthy investors for the lion
>share of the price increase. And the Chevron/Exxon/Shell/BP/... are
>raping, er.. reaping the benefit. So it would seem that we are the
>victims of the wealthy and big business; what else is new?

How does OPEC share any blame in this? The have not cut production quotas.
They do not set prices, only production quotas. World commodities markets
set the price.

You correctly identified the culprits as the speculators in the commodities
market. The flight from U.S. dollar based investments into commodities (by
largely unregulated hedge funds) means that trillions of new money have
entered those markets. Much like the stock market bubble of the 90s and the
recent housing bubble, this causes prices to reach unrealistic (and
ultimately unsustainable) levels.

This is very obvious when you look at non-oil commodities like copper,
steel, gold, corn, etc... It's not just oil prices that have gone through
the roof.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200806/1

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> Have you noticed the difference in the car lots? I am finally
>seeing more and more small cars displayed in the front row while the SUVs and
>pickups are gradually being relegated to the back rows.
>

Americans are a reactive bunch. If prices were to come back down, those
SUVs would probably start flying out the door again. When prices spiked
back in '03, smaller cars became the top sellers in the U.S., but only for
about 6 months. As soon as prices came back down, the trucks and SUVs went
right back to the top of the shopping list.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200806/1

[Jon]

On Jun 15, 4:33 pm, kontiki > wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> > Although I believe it will hurt a lot of workers and small businesses,
>
> Yeah, who cares about them.... they're just the backbone of the country.
>
> > it should facilitate a more sound energy policy for our nation.
>
> what energy policy? give us an example of one Larry. And don't use
> the word 'they" because I hate that.
>
> >It will also make telecommuting and teleconferencing move into the
> > mainstream. That should have a positive effect on the environment,
> > but resourceful marketers and corporations may use the public's
> > distress as an excuse to build more nuclear and coal fired electrical
> > generating facilities, instead of moving toward wind and solar.
>
> >> My feelings about it are not at all mixed.
>
> > You probably have to drive a considerable distance to work every day.
>
> Wrong. I drive 9 miles to work, and usually drive my motorcycle

Not your grandfather's Harley:

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news/video/77000/nb/
77303_16x9_nb.asx>
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news/video/77000/nb/
77214_16x9_nb.asx>

> so I can handle it. I just think its stupid to bankrupt a nation
> for the sake of a religion... and observe nation that *are* producing
> energy soak up money from hard working Americans.... when it doesn't
> have to be that way.
>
> But hey... why should I care? I only drive a motorcycle 9 miles.
> Screw everybody else. That's my energy policy.

I wonder how much oil is consumed by the world in, say, a 1-hour
period (on average). Or even 1 minute...


Regards,
Jon

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:22:31 GMT, "JGalban via AviationKB.com"
<u32749@uwe> wrote in <85c4762e7b8df@uwe>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>While there is little doubt that OPEC is setting the price of their
>>product at the highest point they feel consumers can bear, that isn't
>>the real cause of the astronomical rise in prices. From what I've
>>heard, about 50% of the price of crude oil is the result of wall
>>street investors moving their wealth out of dollar denominated bonds
>>and other instruments (because of the threat of the dollar's continued
>>devaluation) and moving it into inflation-proof commodities (oil).
>>That creates an exaggerated demand, that raises oil prices, that
>>increases inflation, that further weakens the dollar, that .... So,
>>although OPEC naturally shares some of the blame for high fuel prices,
>>you can thank wall street brokers and wealthy investors for the lion
>>share of the price increase. And the Chevron/Exxon/Shell/BP/... are
>>raping, er.. reaping the benefit. So it would seem that we are the
>>victims of the wealthy and big business; what else is new?
>
> How does OPEC share any blame in this? The have not cut production quotas.
>They do not set prices, only production quotas. World commodities markets
>set the price.

Thank you for the correction. It seems that I'm not the only one
under that misapprehension:


http://www.metimes.com/Politics/2008/06/10/saudi_oil_price_summit_scheduled_for_june_22/afp/

Reflecting the view in many consumer countries that OPEC is to
blame for the current price pain, Australian Prime Minister Kevin
Rudd urged rich countries last week to "apply the blowtorch to the
OPEC organisation."

OPEC controls the output of its members through a production quota
system designed to influence the price of oil. Quotas are set at
regular meetings. ...

Saudi economist Ali al-Dakkak said world prices were being driven
by "wild speculation" and a lack of refining capacity in consumer
countries, especially the United States. ...

>
> You correctly identified the culprits as the speculators in the commodities
>market. The flight from U.S. dollar based investments into commodities (by
>largely unregulated hedge funds) means that trillions of new money have
>entered those markets. Much like the stock market bubble of the 90s and the
>recent housing bubble, this causes prices to reach unrealistic (and
>ultimately unsustainable) levels.
>
> This is very obvious when you look at non-oil commodities like copper,
>steel, gold, corn, etc... It's not just oil prices that have gone through
>the roof.
>
>John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:06:16 -0700 (PDT), Jon
> wrote in
>:

>Not your grandfather's Harley:
>
><http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news/video/77000/nb/77303_16x9_nb.asx>
><http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news/video/77000/nb/77214_16x9_nb.asx>


Thanks for the heads-up. Very interesting. It seems that the
manufacturer of this hydrogen-powered motorbike, Intelligent Energy,
is the same company that teamed up with Boeing on the first ever
manned flight of a fuel cell powered light aircraft:
http://www.intelligent-energy.com/index_article.asp?SecID=8&secondlevel=25&artid=4001%20

Here is Intelligent Energy's blurb on the ENV Motorbike:

http://www.intelligent-energy.com/index_article.asp?SecID=5&secondlevel=76&artid=3949
ENV – the world’s first purpose built hydrogen fuel cell powered
motorbike from Intelligent Energy

Powered by a 1kW Intelligent Energy fuel cell, the bike has a top
speed of 50mph and range of 100 miles on a tank of compressed
hydrogen. ...

http://www.intelligent-energy.com/index_article.asp?SecID=8&secondlevel=25&artid=3938



http://www.intelligent-energy.com/images/uploads/apr05_env_monaco.pdf
ENV technical specification and team credits
Key Components of the Bike Power System
Motor 6kW, 48 VDC Brush motor (model LEM-170, supplied by
LMC ltd)
Motor Controller Brusa Direct Current (model MD 206)
Fuel Cell 1kW Intelligent Energy air-cooled (2 x AC32-48)
Hydrogen Storage High pressure carbon composite cylinder (Luxfer
L65)
Hydrogen Energy 2.4kWeh
Storage Battery 4 x 12V Lead Acid (15Ahr) connected in series
Performance Data
Acceleration 0 – 20 mph in 4.3s (32kph)
0 – 30 mph in 7.3s (48 kph)
0 – 50 mph in 12.1s (80kph)
Top speed 50 mph (80kph)
(note: ENV has been tested to 50mph – however, with
further refinements and redevelopments, this top speed is
expected to be exceeded)
Range At least 100 miles (160km)
Physical
Bike mass 80 kg (Total mass including CORE)
Fuel
Hydrogen 99.9% purity
Oxygen Taken from air
Hydrogen refuel time less than 5 minutes
Interface
Electrical connection Multi-core (Intelligent Energy specific)
Design and Supplier Team
Client Intelligent Energy
Bike/Core Design Seymourpowell
Bike/Core Identity Pod Design
Frame & Swingarm Caress Precision Products ltd
Engineering & D.B.C. Tools ltd
Machining
Body Work Ogle Models and Prototypes ltd
Welding GP Motorsports UK ltd
Motor LMC ltd
Lighting Marl International ltd
Machinings JH Mays
Bicycle Parts DMR / Upgrade
Batteries PBQ Batteries


More info:
http://puregreencars.com/Green-Cars-News/Concepts/ENV-motorcycle.html
Rather than the usual solid steel frame, the ENV is constructed of
hollow-cast, aircraft-grade aluminum and weighs a mere 176 pounds,
including its fuel cell – about half the heft of a typical. ...


http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage2251.html
On a full tank, the ENV bike could be used continually for up to
four hours without any need for re-fuelling. The bike can also be
used by riders of any skill level with simple controls, via a
throttle directly linked to the applied power. The bike has no
gears and is strictly defined as a motorbike, although it feels to
riders more like a very quick and responsive mountain bike. ...



There's a nice article on the ENV here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8228479/
June. 15, 2005

A British company that unveiled a fuel cell motorcycle earlier
this year has announced that it hopes to have the zero-emission
vehicles for sale by 2006 at a price of $6,000. ... The news
Tuesday came with a decision by Intelligent Energy to relocate to
Los Angeles, Calif. The state has become a hub for fuel cell
research, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to create a
"hydrogen highway" of filling stations for fuel cell vehicles,
whose only emissions are a bit of heat and water vapor....



Comments:
http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2005/03/15/hydrogen-motorcycle/

[yedyegiss[_2_]]

Jon wrote:

> I wonder how much oil is consumed by the world in, say, a 1-hour
> period (on average). Or even 1 minute...

Current consumption is something like 86 million barrels per day (86
mbpd). Divide by 24 and you get average hourly consumption of 3.583
mbpd. Divide further by 60 and you get average by-the-minute world
consumption of 59717 kbpd.

The USA alone, with 5% of the world's population, consumes about 25% of
these quantities.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 16, 10:12�am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Maybe if George Bush hadn't vetoed drilling in ANWR back in 1995 and
> > worked so hard to put so many areas off limits to drilling, we would
> > be swimming in oil now. �I sure hope I get my share of the windfall
> > profit tax on the oil companies so I can spend $30-40,000 to put solar
> > panels on my house and fly my airplane more often, too.
>
> How does the governor of Texas veto oil drilling in Alaska?

I can't believe anybody took my first comments seriously. Of course
it was Bill Clinton who vetoed drilling in ANWAR. I don't have the
roll call on the votes over the years, but you can make your own guess
at which party has voted most often against generating our own
energy. I'm all for conservation, but no matter how much you conserve
anything, you eventually run out if you don't produce more.

DF

[yd+yg+as]

On 6/16/2008 12:57 PM yedyegiss ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

> Current consumption is something like 86 million barrels per day (86
> mbpd). Divide by 24 and you get average hourly consumption of 3.583
> mbpd. Divide further by 60 and you get average by-the-minute world
> consumption of 59717 kbpd.

Ugh. 3.583 mbp*h* (hour), 59717 kbp*m* (minute).

Every minute, 60,000 barrels of oil worldwide; in the USA, 15,000.

[Jim Logajan]

yd+yg+as > wrote:
> On 6/16/2008 12:57 PM yedyegiss ignored two million years of human
> evolution to write:
>
>> Current consumption is something like 86 million barrels per day (86
>> mbpd). Divide by 24 and you get average hourly consumption of 3.583
>> mbpd. Divide further by 60 and you get average by-the-minute world
>> consumption of 59717 kbpd.
>
> Ugh. 3.583 mbp*h* (hour), 59717 kbp*m* (minute).
>
> Every minute, 60,000 barrels of oil worldwide; in the USA, 15,000.

Of course an unfortunate portion of the world lives in poverty, so relative
consumption stats don't provide much insight. Your figures for the U.S. are
close to those provided by the U.S. government for 2006:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

But consider the average gallons of crude oil consumption per person in the
U.S. (~2006 figures):
(42 gallons/barrel * 20,687,000 barrels/day) / 300,000,000 people =

~2.9 gallons/(person*day)

Put another way, at ~$140/barrel, I get:
($140/barrel * 20,687,000 barrels/day) / 300,000,000 people =

~$9.65/(person*day)

Or yet another way of looking at it, if oil was suddenly "free" the average
yearly "gain" over today's allegedly "high" price would yield
~$3523/(person*year)

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:50:33 -0700 (PDT), wrote in
>:

>I'm all for conservation, but no matter how much you conserve
>anything, you eventually run out if you don't produce more.


Right.

That's why it's important to begin to switch to renewable energy
sources. Then the Sword Of Damocles can be put to rest.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

wrote:
>> uh, clinton was in office in 1995...
>
> Really! Well, he and Dick Cheney must have put him up to it. Bill
> was always looking out for the little guys.
>
> DF

The only reason Bill Clinton ever looked out for the little guy is
because he wanted to know before he got home because Bill was screwing
his wife.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "LD" == Larry Dighera > writes:
LD> But AOPA has a plan to
LD> swell the ranks of private pilots

I wonder what that would be....a free picture of the interior of a
bizjet to anybody who requests? Maybe a signed photo of Thomas Haines
getting checked out in another jet...

--
To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no
choreography, and the dancers hit each other.
- Jack Handey

[Bob Fry]

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

kt> Sir, the United States has lots of oil, coal and gas
kt> resources. We siply do not exploit them as other countries
kt> do. We just pay through nose and make them rich.... and they
kt> are very happy. They are buying up property in the US as we
kt> speak with the wealth they obtain.

Ahhh...a target-rich environment.

- Global warming. Turns out if we release hundreds of millions of
years' worth of carbon back into the atmosphere in less than 200
years...**** happens. Bad ****.

- Oooooo, the bogeymen are buying our property! Personally it bothers
me more that we're paying for both sides of Bush's war.

- We have exploited everything in this country lately except our
can-do attitude. Not can-exploit-the-hell-out-of-the-same-stuff
attitude, no, the one we haven't exploited is the
can-be-intelligent-and-create-alternate-energy-sources attitude.

- Get a clue, any fookin' clue. Please.

--
Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared
impossible before they were done.
~ Louis Brandeis

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-15, kontiki > wrote:
> Sir, the United States has lots of oil, coal and gas resources. We
> siply do not exploit them as other countries do.

Not all crude is the same, and the United States is already drilling for
quite a lot of oil. The remaining large oil fields that aren't being
exploited currently are not *cheap* oil, but expensive oil.

In any case, the oil companies that prospect and drill and refine this
oil will sell it on the world market along with all the other oil.
Unless the US takes the socialist approach of nationalizing it.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-15, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Are you so naïve as to believe the public is capable of, or indeed
> even interested in, thinking ahead and planning for the future?

Indeed the levels of credit card debt aptly demonstrate the lack of
planning for the future.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-16, > wrote:
> Maybe if George Bush hadn't vetoed drilling in ANWR back in 1995 and
> worked so hard to put so many areas off limits to drilling, we would
> be swimming in oil now.

You wouldn't be swimming in oil: that oil would be traded on the global
market for oil along with all the rest of it. The amounts of oil from
that drilling would be minor compared to world demand.

It would require the socialist approach of nationalization for it to
have any particular impact on the US.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Not all crude is the same, and the United States is already drilling for
> quite a lot of oil. The remaining large oil fields that aren't being
> exploited currently are not *cheap* oil, but expensive oil.

At current prices, almost all known oil reserves in the US are viable.

Economics have little to do with our domestic energy policy, or our
dependency on foreign oil. The Left has, over the past 30 years, made sure
that their environmental policies have become intertwined throughout our
bureaucracy (the folks who REALLY run this country, day-to-day), knowing
that this day would come. And come it has, as inevitable as the rain.

We now find ourselves completely paralyzed by these regulations, and unable
to respond in any logical, timely, or responsible way. All according to
plan. It's been remarkably predictable.

My father -- who worked with gas & electric utilities for 38 years --
predicted this day thirty years ago with remarkable clarity and accuracy.
He knew then that all the laws being written back in the '70s (ironically
during the "energy crisis") would one day come back to haunt us -- and, wow,
was he right!

We can no more use our own domestic energy supplies now than we can walk on
Mars tomorrow. The mere threat of litigation, and the intertwined mess of
often-conflicting regulations that can take years to unravel, has made sure
of that -- no company in their right mind would attempt it, in the current
regulatory environment.

All according to plan.

You've got to ask yourselves this: At what price level do "We the People"
rise up and throw the bums out? At what price point do "We the People"
take control of our government and reassert common sense? At what point do
"We the People" start making use of our known domestic energy resources, and
say "To hell with the snail darter"?

It's going to happen -- as sure as the rain -- but when? $5/gallon?
$10/gallon? When we can no longer afford to drive to work, and the entire
economy comes to a screeching halt?

Sadly, neither party seems to have any clue how desperate people are getting
in the heartland. But they will find out, sooner or later.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Americans are a reactive bunch. If prices were to come back down, those
> SUVs would probably start flying out the door again. When prices spiked
> back in '03, smaller cars became the top sellers in the U.S., but only for
> about 6 months. As soon as prices came back down, the trucks and SUVs
> went
> right back to the top of the shopping list.

That's because trucks and SUVs are more useful than itty-bitty cars.

Bottom line: SUVs can do all sorts of things that econocars cannot, while
SUVs can do everything that the econocar can do, better. With one
exception: Fuel consumption.

I think we'll see a short-term boom for small-car manufacturers, as
consumers shift to multiple vehicles, and use the ones that make the most
sense for the task at hand.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Not all crude is the same, and the United States is already drilling for
> quite a lot of oil. The remaining large oil fields that aren't being
> exploited currently are not *cheap* oil, but expensive oil.

This says it all, I'm afraid:

Democrats reject call to lift ban on off-shore oil drilling:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/ap_on_go_pr_wh/offshore_oil

So long as Congress is controlled by these people, nothing will change.
(Hell, nothing would probably change even WITHOUT them in control, but at
least there'd be a tiny, miniscule *chance* of change....)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On Jun 15, 4:27*pm, kontiki > wrote:
> Martin Hotze wrote:
> > kontiki schrieb:
> >> I just think its stupid to bankrupt a nation
> >> for the sake of a religion... *and observe nation that *are* producing
> >> energy soak up money from hard working Americans.... when it doesn't
> >> have to be that way.
>
> > 1) What do you want to do? It's their oil. For sure it is not yours or
> > ours.
>
> Sir, the United States has lots of oil, coal and gas resources. We
> siply do not exploit them as other countries do. We just pay through
> nose and make them rich.... and they are very happy. They are buying
> up property in the US as we speak with the wealth they obtain.
>
> > 2) What will you/we (in 1 or in 10 or in 50 generations?) do when all
> > the oil is gone?
>
> Sir, yes, the oil (gas and coal) may perhaps be gone one day many years
> hence. Hopefully we will have used what the sun provided in a wise way.
> Either way, its there... in the earth. It is ours to be used for good
> and to provide for a way of life. Other countries are utilizing their
> resources rather effectively, wouldn't you say?
>
> If the price of corn went up to $50 dollars an ear would you whine
> and complain... *starve yourself and say "the days of much corn are
> gone, but that is good because the sun will burn out one day...."
> or would you plant more corn and prosper?

Oil isn't a seed crop.

You don't plant a barrel of oil in the ground and grow more which is
your implication...and no, we don't have proven reserves to accomplish
more than fractionally what you suggest and that's not a matter open
to unbridled (read: uneducated) speculation.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:31:15 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<nLa6k.159640$TT4.153699@attbi_s22>:

>> Not all crude is the same, and the United States is already drilling for
>> quite a lot of oil. The remaining large oil fields that aren't being
>> exploited currently are not *cheap* oil, but expensive oil.
>
>At current prices, almost all known oil reserves in the US are viable.
>
>Economics have little to do with our domestic energy policy, or our
>dependency on foreign oil.

Are you referring to this energy policy?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/National-Energy-Policy.pdf

Where is the president's call for legislation creating a viable urban
transportation system? The National Energy Policy calls for
rebuilding the electric grid, but fails to see that that may be
unnecessary if on-site generation were implemented throughout the
nation. It recommends construction of new nuclear energy facilities
despite their 25-year useful life span, and our nation's inability to
find an acceptable system of safely sequestering the enormous amount
of radioactive waste they create. This National Energy Policy
supports an insignificant budget increase of $39.2 million for the
Department of Energy’s research and development of renewable energy
resources. That's not support; that's camouflage.

the Bush administration is so blinded by their pro-oil point of view,
that they are incapable of creating a viable national energy policy
that is sustainable and environmentally responsible.


>The Left has, over the past 30 years, made sure
>that their environmental policies have become intertwined throughout our
>bureaucracy (the folks who REALLY run this country, day-to-day), knowing
>that this day would come. And come it has, as inevitable as the rain.
>

And what has the right done to switch our dependency on the finite oil
reserves, be they domestic or foreign, to renewable energy? (Please
don't say gasohol; that scientifically unsound boondoggle is never
going to replace petroleum.) The right has done nothing to avert us
from an unsustainable dependence on petroleum. But Bush HAS attempted
to suppress scientific information that damns petroleum dependence:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/
http://www.space.com/news/bush_warming_041027.html

>We now find ourselves completely paralyzed by these regulations, and unable
>to respond in any logical, timely, or responsible way. All according to
>plan. It's been remarkably predictable.
>

You forgot 'laudable.' The time has come for the US (and the rest of
the world) to begin to seriously develop sustainable energy sources.
It's inevitable; why not tackle the issue head on, rather than waiting
before it becomes a crisis?

The run up in fuel prices is not a reason to abandon responsible
environmental policy and start building unsightly oil platforms along
our scenic beaches; the run up in fuel prices heralds the absurdity of
our petroleum dependency.

>My father -- who worked with gas & electric utilities for 38 years --
>predicted this day thirty years ago with remarkable clarity and accuracy.
>He knew then that all the laws being written back in the '70s (ironically
>during the "energy crisis") would one day come back to haunt us -- and, wow,
>was he right!
>
>We can no more use our own domestic energy supplies now than we can walk on
>Mars tomorrow. The mere threat of litigation, and the intertwined mess of
>often-conflicting regulations that can take years to unravel, has made sure
>of that -- no company in their right mind would attempt it, in the current
>regulatory environment.
>
>All according to plan.

Whether that is was the original plan seems unlikely and is certainly
open to debate.

What is not open to debate, is the fact that what little oil remains
under US control on the north American continent should be reserved
for future contingencies. If, in the unlikely event, the US were to
become involved in a conflict that interrupted the flow of foreign oil
into our nation's tanks, where would our nation obtain the petroleum
our military is so dependent upon? The Strategic Oil Reserve only
contains 60-days supply. That will be woefully inadequate for a
long-term conflict.

>
>You've got to ask yourselves this: At what price level do "We the People"
>rise up and throw the bums out? At what price point do "We the People"
>take control of our government and reassert common sense? At what point do
>"We the People" start making use of our known domestic energy resources, and
>say "To hell with the snail darter"?

At what price point do "We the People" abandon our irrational
dependence on a finite commodity and embrace responsible renewable
energy policies?

Don't worry about "throwing the bum out," he's only got 215 days 10
hours and 14 minutes left in office.

>
>It's going to happen -- as sure as the rain -- but when? $5/gallon?
>$10/gallon? When we can no longer afford to drive to work, and the entire
>economy comes to a screeching halt?

I don't share your belief that abandoning responsible environmental
policy is inevitable at all. What is inevitable is the fact that the
oil supply will begin to dwindle and prices will continue to rise as a
result. Anyone unable to see the truth in that statement, is
delusional.

>
>Sadly, neither party seems to have any clue how desperate people are getting
>in the heartland. But they will find out, sooner or later.

Oh, I think they've got a clue. They just don't want to be the ones
to voice what is sure to be an unpopular if inevitably necessary
remedy. But often a distasteful elixir is necessary for recovery.
Take your medicine like a man, and you shall be healed (instead of
big-oil being well-healed).

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Americans are a reactive bunch. If prices were to come back down, those
>> SUVs would probably start flying out the door again. When prices
>> spiked
>> back in '03, smaller cars became the top sellers in the U.S., but only
>> for
>> about 6 months. As soon as prices came back down, the trucks and SUVs
>> went
>> right back to the top of the shopping list.
>
> That's because trucks and SUVs are more useful than itty-bitty cars.
>
> Bottom line: SUVs can do all sorts of things that econocars cannot,
> while SUVs can do everything that the econocar can do, better. With one
> exception: Fuel consumption.
>
> I think we'll see a short-term boom for small-car manufacturers, as
> consumers shift to multiple vehicles, and use the ones that make the
> most sense for the task at hand.

I think you are wrong here. Gas is never going to be <$2.00/gal again
and probably not <$3. Around here, and we are at the low end of the gas
price spectrum, they can't give away all the SUVs that they have taken
in on trade in the last month or two. There is a car lot down the street
from my office and they have prices slashed on the things. When I say
slashed I'm talking 30 - 50% below current Blue-book.

There is a middle ground between SUVs and econocars. That middle ground
is good old mid-size and even large cars. I'd bet that 90% of the SUVs
on the road could be replaced by those cars and with the exception of
soccer Mom's having to spend 30 more seconds properly loading the trunk
they would see no difference in utility.

[Jim Logajan]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> Not all crude is the same, and the United States is already drilling
>> for quite a lot of oil. The remaining large oil fields that aren't
>> being exploited currently are not *cheap* oil, but expensive oil.
>
> This says it all, I'm afraid:
>
> Democrats reject call to lift ban on off-shore oil drilling:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/ap_on_go_pr_wh/offshore_oil

Your summary sentence failed to take into account this:
"Bush's brother, Jeb, fiercely opposed offshore drilling when he was
governor of Florida."

He, like the other elected officials of other coastal states where off
shore oil drilling is viable, was merely reflecting the desires of the
populations of those states.

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Jay Honeck schrieb:
> At current prices, almost all known oil reserves in the US are viable.

but this will then won't bring the price *down*

> Economics have little to do with our domestic energy policy, or our
> dependency on foreign oil. The Left has, over the past 30 years, made sure
> that their environmental policies have become intertwined throughout our
> bureaucracy (the folks who REALLY run this country, day-to-day), knowing
> that this day would come. And come it has, as inevitable as the rain.

hmm, it is not policy but bureaucracy? and not economis?
*wow*

> We now find ourselves completely paralyzed by these regulations, and unable
> to respond in any logical, timely, or responsible way. All according to
> plan. It's been remarkably predictable.

true. you still cry for cheap oil (instead of investing in insulation,
renewable energy, etc. etc.).

> My father -- who worked with gas & electric utilities for 38 years --
> predicted this day thirty years ago with remarkable clarity and accuracy.
> He knew then that all the laws being written back in the '70s (ironically
> during the "energy crisis") would one day come back to haunt us -- and, wow,
> was he right!

yeah, you din't change very much over the last 30 years.

> You've got to ask yourselves this: At what price level do "We the People"
> rise up and throw the bums out? At what price point do "We the People"
> take control of our government and reassert common sense? At what point do
> "We the People" start making use of our known domestic energy resources, and
> say "To hell with the snail darter"?


what will "you, the people" do? cry for cheap oil? or something with
more clue.

#m

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>That's because trucks and SUVs are more useful than itty-bitty cars.
>
>Bottom line: SUVs can do all sorts of things that econocars cannot, while
>SUVs can do everything that the econocar can do, better. With one
>exception: Fuel consumption.
>

That depends on what you need them for. Here in Phoenix, they are used as
nothing more than oversized commuter vehicles. Even with gas prices the way
they are, I still know people who refuse to stop solo commuting in completely
empty Suburbans and Excursions.

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

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:40:45 -0500, Jim Logajan >
wrote in >:

>"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> Democrats reject call to lift ban on off-shore oil drilling:
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/ap_on_go_pr_wh/offshore_oil
>
>Your summary sentence failed to take into account this:
>"Bush's brother, Jeb, fiercely opposed offshore drilling when he was
>governor of Florida."
>

Word is, that the current Florida governor is backing McCain with an
eye toward becoming the RNC Veep candidate.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:06:57 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote in
>:

>
>There is a middle ground between SUVs and econocars. That middle ground
>is good old mid-size and even large cars.

Here's an even better alternative:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/12/fuel-cell-power.html
Fuel Cell Powertrain in the Honda FCX Clarity Is Significant
Advancement over Predecessors

Honda's FCX Clarity utilizes Honda’s V Flow Stack in combination
with a new compact and efficient lithium-ion battery pack and a
single hydrogen storage tank to power the vehicle’s electric drive
motor. The fuel cell stack operates as the vehicle’s main power
source. ...
http://world.honda.com/news/2008/4080616New-FCX-Clarity/

And you can make your own fuel:

http://world.honda.com/news/2003/c031002.html
Honda Begins Experiments with Hydrogen Home Energy Station and
Improves Solar-Cell Technology for Production of Hydrogen

http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/FCX/station/
In addition to a solar cell-powered hydrogen refueling station,
Honda is operating an experimental Home Energy Station that
generates hydrogen from natural gas for use in fuel cell vehicles
while supplying electricity and hot water to the home as part of
its ongoing research into development of hydrogen production and
supply systems for a hydrogen-based society of the future. ...


Honda's already got fuel-cell cars in the hands of consumers. Where
are GM and Ford? Laggin'.

[kontiki[_2_]]

Bob Fry wrote:

>
> - Get a clue, any fookin' clue. Please.
>

Fry, if you had a brain or cognitive though capability you'd be dangerous.

[kontiki[_2_]]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> Not all crude is the same, and the United States is already drilling for
> quite a lot of oil. The remaining large oil fields that aren't being
> exploited currently are not *cheap* oil, but expensive oil.

And oil from other countries is cheap?

>
> In any case, the oil companies that prospect and drill and refine this
> oil will sell it on the world market along with all the other oil.
> Unless the US takes the socialist approach of nationalizing it.
>

Oil is a worldwide commodity, just like corn or anything else. Tell us
something we don't already know, or stop wasting bandwidth.

[kontiki[_2_]]

well stated.

[kontiki[_2_]]

wrote:

>
> You don't plant a barrel of oil in the ground and grow more which is
> your implication...and no, we don't have proven reserves to accomplish
> more than fractionally what you suggest and that's not a matter open
> to unbridled (read: uneducated) speculation.

Please provide some proof.

Oil (or gas or coal) is nothing more (and nothing less) than stored
solar energy. We can bankrupt the nation chasing a religious fad or we
can put our people to work increasing our GDP. Its a very simple choice.

It requires leadership which is non-existant in this country today, and
you sir, are a gleaming example of the lack of it.

[kontiki[_2_]]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> Jay Honeck schrieb:
>> At current prices, almost all known oil reserves in the US are viable.
>
> but this will then won't bring the price *down*
>

Be kind enough to supply some documentation to support that statement
otherwise I have no recourse but to classify it as I would a fart
escaping from a cows ass.

>
> true. you still cry for cheap oil (instead of investing in insulation,
> renewable energy, etc. etc.).

Again, a blanket statement made, much as the sort of statements made bu
Ted Kennedy, or Al Gore, who, interestingly, has been consuming even
more energy in his mansion than he did last year... even after
supposedly spending thousands on solar panels, etc. etc. His home along
uses 10x the energy as an average household. Leading by example I suppose...

>
>> My father -- who worked with gas & electric utilities for 38 years --
>> predicted this day thirty years ago with remarkable clarity and
>> accuracy. He knew then that all the laws being written back in the
>> '70s (ironically during the "energy crisis") would one day come back
>> to haunt us -- and, wow, was he right!
>
> yeah, you din't change very much over the last 30 years.
>

And neither have you... you are still an idiot.

>> You've got to ask yourselves this: At what price level do "We the
>> People" rise up and throw the bums out? At what price point do "We
>> the People" take control of our government and reassert common sense?
>> At what point do "We the People" start making use of our known
>> domestic energy resources, and say "To hell with the snail darter"?
>
>
> what will "you, the people" do? cry for cheap oil? or something with
> more clue.
>
> #m

Amazing. Well we certainly won't be looking to you for any answers.

[kontiki[_2_]]

Bob Fry wrote:
>>>>>> "LD" == Larry Dighera > writes:
> LD> But AOPA has a plan to
> LD> swell the ranks of private pilots
>
> I wonder what that would be....a free picture of the interior of a
> bizjet to anybody who requests? Maybe a signed photo of Thomas Haines
> getting checked out in another jet...
>

Fry, will do us all a favor and crawl back into you hole? Thanks.

[Jim Logajan]

kontiki > wrote:
> Dylan Smith wrote:
>
>> Not all crude is the same, and the United States is already drilling for
>> quite a lot of oil. The remaining large oil fields that aren't being
>> exploited currently are not *cheap* oil, but expensive oil.
>
> And oil from other countries is cheap?

Can't speak for crude, but there are large differences in the price of one
of its refined products, gasoline/petrol, as demonstrated by this table
(compiled in March, 2005):

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> Democrats reject call to lift ban on off-shore oil drilling:
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/ap_on_go_pr_wh/offshore_oil
>
> Your summary sentence failed to take into account this:
> "Bush's brother, Jeb, fiercely opposed offshore drilling when he was
> governor of Florida."

True enough. Both parties have proven to be inept, and are largely
controlled by corrupt special interests.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[kontiki[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> kontiki > wrote:
>> Dylan Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Not all crude is the same, and the United States is already drilling for
>>> quite a lot of oil. The remaining large oil fields that aren't being
>>> exploited currently are not *cheap* oil, but expensive oil.
>> And oil from other countries is cheap?
>
> Can't speak for crude, but there are large differences in the price of one
> of its refined products, gasoline/petrol, as demonstrated by this table
> (compiled in March, 2005):
>
> http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/

What does that have to do with my challenge? Besides...If you had
actually read your link you would know why:

"The main factor in price disparities between countries is government
policy, according to AirInc, a company that tracks the cost of living in
various places around the world. Many European nations tax gasoline
heavily, with taxes making up as much as 75 percent of the cost of a
gallon of gasoline."

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Are you referring to this energy policy?
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/National-Energy-Policy.pdf
>
> Where is the president's call for legislation creating a viable urban
> transportation system?
>

Right where it should be.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-18, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> Not all crude is the same, and the United States is already drilling for
>> quite a lot of oil. The remaining large oil fields that aren't being
>> exploited currently are not *cheap* oil, but expensive oil.
>
> At current prices, almost all known oil reserves in the US are viable.

But suppose you exploit every single oil reserve, the oil will *still*
be traded on the global market (because oil companies quite naturally
want to maximise profits). So tear up all environmental regulations,
exploit all the oil - and oil prices will hardly move, since it'll still
all go on the global market and global conditions won't have changed.
Gasoline will still ultimately hit $10/gallon if that's what it's going
to do.

Unless, of course, you take the socialist approach of nationalizing your
oil industry and imposing price controls, and force the oil companies to
only sell at these controlled prices into the US market. This is in
effect what you are calling for.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-18, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> That's because trucks and SUVs are more useful than itty-bitty cars.
>
> Bottom line: SUVs can do all sorts of things that econocars cannot, while
> SUVs can do everything that the econocar can do, better. With one
> exception: Fuel consumption.

Most people don't live in relatively rural spots like yourself - most
live in fairly urban areas.

Some things a midsize car can do that an SUV can't:
- Go around corners without feeling like they are going to tip over
- Avoid accidents (to such an extent you're twice as likely to be killed
in a Ford Explorer than in a VW Jetta)
- Fit in urban parking garages comfortably with enough room to open the
doors fully
- Parallel park in a small space

I have a midsize car (I used to have a truck). I do not miss my F-150
one bit, my Audi is nicer to drive, uses half the fuel, is quieter, more
responsive, costs the same to insure, has less expensive consumables
(resulting in less expensive maintenance) and looks much nicer. It's
also galvanized so it doesn't rust.

In the last 5 years, I've needed something with more carrying capacity
than the Audi just once. Now consider the money saved from using half
the fuel - how much truck rental can that pay for? Much more than one
day in 5 years. The Audi can tow a glider trailer very happily, so
I don't even need a truck to do that.

Now for some people, an SUV makes sense. But not the typical urban
commuter in an office job: they just have the SUV as a fashion
statement. The people who actually *need* them on a frequent basis are a
very small minority.

You see people with SUVs around here, but typically they are blue,
covered in mud, and have 'Land Rover' stuck on them somewhere and a
piece of agricultural machinery on the towbar.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-06-19, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> But suppose you exploit every single oil reserve, the oil will *still*
> be traded on the global market (because oil companies quite naturally
> want to maximise profits). So tear up all environmental regulations,
> exploit all the oil - and oil prices will hardly move, since it'll still
> all go on the global market and global conditions won't have changed.
> Gasoline will still ultimately hit $10/gallon if that's what it's going
> to do.

You're ignoring the most basic of all market forces: supply and demand.
Supply goes up, prices go down, no matter where things are bought or sold.
It's that simple.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-06-19, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> Some things a midsize car can do that an SUV can't:
> - Go around corners without feeling like they are going to tip over
> - Avoid accidents (to such an extent you're twice as likely to be killed
> in a Ford Explorer than in a VW Jetta)
> - Fit in urban parking garages comfortably with enough room to open the
> doors fully
> - Parallel park in a small space

My SUV does all of these. It even gets 28 MPG on the highway (actual results
from several 1000-mile-plus trips, fully loaded). No, it's not an Explorer
(no way in hell will I ever own another product of the Ford Motor Company),
or a TrailBlazer, much less a Suburban. Don't tar all SUVs with the same
brush.

> Now for some people, an SUV makes sense. But not the typical urban
> commuter in an office job: they just have the SUV as a fashion
> statement. The people who actually *need* them on a frequent basis are a
> very small minority.

Yes, and? In our system, nobody is entitled to an opinion on whether someone
else needs something. If you think you need it, you buy iy. It's that
simple.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> Gasoline will still ultimately hit $10/gallon if that's what it's going
>> to do.
>
> You're ignoring the most basic of all market forces: supply and demand.
> Supply goes up, prices go down, no matter where things are bought or sold.
> It's that simple.

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

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Now for some people, an SUV makes sense. But not the typical urban
> commuter in an office job: they just have the SUV as a fashion
> statement. The people who actually *need* them on a frequent basis are a
> very small minority.

Absolutely. I am old enough to remember when pickup trucks were driven by
two classes of people:

- Farmers
- Work crews

Then, someone got the notion that they could "Trick their Truck" -- and, of
course, they were cheap -- so now EVERYONE drives a pickup truck, getting 18
mpg. It's stupid.

I drive "The Grape" (our '95 Toyota T100 4x4 pickup) everywhere now, because
my son drives our Subaru, while my wife drives the Mustang. I hate driving
it in the summer, because it gets terrible mileage (it was fantastic this
past winter, with the record snowfall) -- but it sure is handy for us at the
hotel.

We use it like a mobile garage to carry all of our lawn care implements, and
(of course) it's got the 55 gallon transfer tank in the back that we use to
fuel the plane(s) and all the gas-powered tools at the hotel. We also haul
all manner of items, from drywall to plumbing fixtures. We get a lot of use
out of that truck, and there would simply be no substitute for it in our
case.

As you may remember, to avoid spending so much on gasoline, last fall I
tried to buy an electric car. I know probably a dozen people in Iowa City
that would buy one in a heart-beat, and I'm sure there are hundreds more.
No one drives more than ten miles to work here, so it's a good market for
it.

No viable electric vehicle existed then, and none exist today. It's sad,
but apparently the market is unable to respond to the demand.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Frank Stutzman[_2_]]

Jay Maynard > wrote:

> You're ignoring the most basic of all market forces: supply and demand.
> Supply goes up, prices go down, no matter where things are bought or sold.
> It's that simple.

All true. However if demand goes up and supply doesn't keep pace, prices
will go up.

China and India are markets for oil that really didn't matter all that much
10 years go. Now they are using a small but significant percentage of
world production. And at the moment it doesn't look that percentage is going
to get any smaller.

Also what the supply and demand thing igores is the devaluation of currency.
The dollar is weaker than its been in decades. Unfortunately, I'm not
goog enough of economist to really expound on how that effects the cost
of oil.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:10:07 +0000 (UTC), Frank Stutzman
> wrote in
>:

>China and India are markets for oil that really didn't matter all that much
>10 years go. Now they are using a small but significant percentage of
>world production. And at the moment it doesn't look that percentage is going
>to get any smaller.

Below is a quote from comedian Bill Maher's HBO TV series Real Time
that aired March, 31, 2006:

So on this day, the 17th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil
spill, let us pause to consider how close we are to making
ourselves fossils from the fossil fuels we extract. In the next
twenty years, almost a billion Chinese people will be trading in
their bicycles for the automobile. Folks, we either get our ****
together on this quickly, or we're going to have to go to plan
'B': inventing a car that runs on Chinese people.

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Dylan Smith schrieb:
> On 2008-06-18, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>> Not all crude is the same, and the United States is already drilling for
>>> quite a lot of oil. The remaining large oil fields that aren't being
>>> exploited currently are not *cheap* oil, but expensive oil.
>> At current prices, almost all known oil reserves in the US are viable.
>
> But suppose you exploit every single oil reserve, the oil will *still*
> be traded on the global market (because oil companies quite naturally
> want to maximise profits). So tear up all environmental regulations,
> exploit all the oil - and oil prices will hardly move, since it'll still
> all go on the global market and global conditions won't have changed.
> Gasoline will still ultimately hit $10/gallon if that's what it's going
> to do.

and then you still only move the problem back for some/many years.

> Unless, of course, you take the socialist approach of nationalizing your
> oil industry and imposing price controls, and force the oil companies to
> only sell at these controlled prices into the US market. This is in
> effect what you are calling for.

I'd say that the oil companies then won't sell into the US for some time
until the restrictions are lifted.


#m

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-19, Jay Maynard > wrote:
> You're ignoring the most basic of all market forces: supply and demand.
> Supply goes up, prices go down, no matter where things are bought or sold.
> It's that simple.

No I'm not; if you exploited all the possible US resources (many of
which are expensive oil) it wouldn't make a large enough impact on
_global_ prices because it would only be a relatively small increase in
_global_ supply, since that's where the oil will be traded. It won't
make the US awash with oil, it'll just add a little bit to _global_
supply. While it would help the trade deficit, it's not going to bring
back the days of $15/bbl oil and $1.25/gal gasoline.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-19, Jay Maynard > wrote:
> Yes, and? In our system, nobody is entitled to an opinion on whether someone
> else needs something.

Yes, they are actually - it's the cornerstone of western democracy,
'free speech'. What they are not entitled to is that opinion being
listened to or heeded.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-06-19, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2008-06-19, Jay Maynard > wrote:
>> You're ignoring the most basic of all market forces: supply and demand.
>> Supply goes up, prices go down, no matter where things are bought or sold.
>> It's that simple.
> No I'm not; if you exploited all the possible US resources (many of
> which are expensive oil) it wouldn't make a large enough impact on
> _global_ prices because it would only be a relatively small increase in
> _global_ supply, since that's where the oil will be traded. It won't
> make the US awash with oil, it'll just add a little bit to _global_
> supply. While it would help the trade deficit, it's not going to bring
> back the days of $15/bbl oil and $1.25/gal gasoline.

No, it won't. OTOH, it took a relitively small disruption to send oil from
$85 to $130; it won't take that much of a supply increase to send it back
down.

The answer to high oil prices is to develop our oil reserves and join the
market, not to chase pie in the sky stuff that won't bear fruit for decades.
No, I'm not saying we should avoid developing other forms of energy, but we
cannot just ignore current needs while doing so.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[kontiki[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Below is a quote from comedian Bill Maher's HBO TV series Real Time
> that aired March, 31, 2006:
>
> So on this day, the 17th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil
> spill, let us pause to consider how close we are to making
> ourselves fossils from the fossil fuels we extract. In the next
> twenty years, almost a billion Chinese people will be trading in
> their bicycles for the automobile. Folks, we either get our ****
> together on this quickly, or we're going to have to go to plan
> 'B': inventing a car that runs on Chinese people.

All you ever do is paste quotes from other sources... are even capable
of any original or creative thoughts of you own?

[kontiki[_2_]]

Dylan Smith wrote:
>
> No I'm not; if you exploited all the possible US resources (many of
> which are expensive oil) it wouldn't make a large enough impact on
> _global_ prices because it would only be a relatively small increase in
> _global_ supply, since that's where the oil will be traded. It won't
> make the US awash with oil, it'll just add a little bit to _global_
> supply. While it would help the trade deficit, it's not going to bring
> back the days of $15/bbl oil and $1.25/gal gasoline.
>

Dylan you can't be that dense can you? Regardless of the the costs
(assuming all oil is 'expensive oil', as you like to say), what is
more obnoxious... sending massive amounts of US capital to foreign
oil suppoliers or keeping it here in the US... employing American
workers in American jobs in American companies?

Sheesh, use you brain son.

[kontiki[_2_]]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2008-06-19, Jay Maynard > wrote:
>> Yes, and? In our system, nobody is entitled to an opinion on whether someone
>> else needs something.
>
> Yes, they are actually - it's the cornerstone of western democracy,
> 'free speech'. What they are not entitled to is that opinion being
> listened to or heeded.
>

Well at least I can agree with you on that statement.

[Jim Logajan]

kontiki > wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> Below is a quote from comedian Bill Maher's HBO TV series Real Time
>> that aired March, 31, 2006:
>>
>> So on this day, the 17th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil
>> spill, let us pause to consider how close we are to making
>> ourselves fossils from the fossil fuels we extract. In the next
>> twenty years, almost a billion Chinese people will be trading in
>> their bicycles for the automobile. Folks, we either get our ****
>> together on this quickly, or we're going to have to go to plan
>> 'B': inventing a car that runs on Chinese people.
>
> All you ever do is paste quotes from other sources... are even capable
> of any original or creative thoughts of you own?

Speaking of gratuitous insults, just how old are you anyway?

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:32:06 -0400, kontiki >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> Below is a quote from comedian Bill Maher's HBO TV series Real Time
>> that aired March, 31, 2006:
>>
>> So on this day, the 17th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil
>> spill, let us pause to consider how close we are to making
>> ourselves fossils from the fossil fuels we extract. In the next
>> twenty years, almost a billion Chinese people will be trading in
>> their bicycles for the automobile. Folks, we either get our ****
>> together on this quickly, or we're going to have to go to plan
>> 'B': inventing a car that runs on Chinese people.
>
>All you ever do is paste quotes from other sources...

The sources whose content I cite generally have a reputation for
presenting a balanced view, and I use them to bolster my arguments (or
to quantify yours in this case) in discussion. Personal opinions are
cheap, but researched and verified information is powerful. However,
I wouldn't expect someone with limited vision and the cognitive
capacity of a Neanderthal to grasp the concept of credibility. :-)

>are even capable of any original or creative thoughts of you own?

Occasionally, when the situation warrants it. Your example of
creative grammar above certainly is inspiring. :-)

[kontiki[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> Occasionally, when the situation warrants it. Your example of
> creative grammar above certainly is inspiring. :-)
>

Well I admit to being a rapid typist and my fingers often don't keep
up with my thoughts and I don't take the time to go back and correct
minor typos. I realize that it provides someone a means to divert the
focus from criticism of their statements to my typing.

[Viperdoc]

"However,
I wouldn't expect someone with limited vision and the cognitive
capacity of a Neanderthal to grasp the concept of credibility. :-)"

Larry, I thought you said you never resorted to personal attacks, or is it
just due to the fact that he disagrees with your limited and narrow point of
view?

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-19, kontiki > wrote:

I'll ignore your ad-hominen attack.

> Regardless of the the costs
> (assuming all oil is 'expensive oil', as you like to say), what is
> more obnoxious... sending massive amounts of US capital to foreign
> oil suppoliers or keeping it here in the US... employing American
> workers in American jobs in American companies?

Perhaps in a strategic sense it's best to use up all those filthy
foreigner's oil first, before using up your own? In any case, I don't
really see Canadians as being particularly evil (they are your biggest
single foreign supplier).

In any case, that's not what I was discussing; I was discussing the very
likely probability that exploiting all US oil resources would not bring
a return to the days of cheap oil like what we had back before 2002, and
they'd still be traded on the global market. The issue is that so long
as the Chinese and Indian economies keep expanding like they are doing,
turning on the US oil tap is not likely to change the long term trend in
price.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[kontiki[_2_]]

Dylan Smith wrote:
>
> Perhaps in a strategic sense it's best to use up all those filthy
> foreigner's oil first, before using up your own? In any case, I don't
> really see Canadians as being particularly evil (they are your biggest
> single foreign supplier).
>

We are bankrupting our nation... increasing the trade deficit,
devaluing the dollar, putting people out of work and making those
"filthy foreigners" (as you call them) fabulously rich in the process.
Does that sound like a good strategic plan to you? I doesn't to me.

> In any case, that's not what I was discussing; I was discussing the very
> likely probability that exploiting all US oil resources would not bring
> a return to the days of cheap oil like what we had back before 2002, and
> they'd still be traded on the global market. The issue is that so long
> as the Chinese and Indian economies keep expanding like they are doing,
> turning on the US oil tap is not likely to change the long term trend in
> price.
>

Well that is all the more reason to start developing our own oil
as a part of an overall energy plan to make us less dependent on
foreign suppliers, boost the US economy, and put the world on notice
that the United States is not a bunch of impotent dildos paralyzed
by impotent politicians beholden to special interests, desperately
hoping things will get better.

No one improves their situation without taking positive assertive
action and follow through. We should have started domestic exploration
and production several years ago and we wouldn't even be having this
discussion today. The anal argument (typical of Chuck Schumer, et. al)
is that we should drill for our own oil because ".. it would take 5
years to get it in production..) is such lame excuse to do nothing
and solve nothing. Typical of a politician.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 04:26:49 -0500, "Viperdoc"
> wrote in
>:

>"However,
>I wouldn't expect someone with limited vision and the cognitive
>capacity of a Neanderthal to grasp the concept of credibility. :-)"
>
>Larry, I thought you said you never resorted to personal attacks, or is it
>just due to the fact that he disagrees with your limited and narrow point of
>view?
>

Well, I must admit that I'm flattered to have the attention of a full
USAF Colonel taking time out of his personal European holiday to
comment on my contribution to this newsgroup. However, with all due
respect, I doubt that I'd use an absolute word like 'never' in that
context. Perhaps you can provide the Message-ID number of my article
in which you believe you read that.

Further, with all due respect, his questioning of my competence to
create original prose was not due to any disagreement; my followup
Bill Maher quote actually bolstered his unsupported assertion, so we
agree that China's demand for petroleum will continue to increase over
time.

I'm curious as to why you characterize my view as "limited and
narrow." Are you able to quote my specific language that leads you to
that opinion?

And what is your view on the subject of US dependence on foreign oil,
Wall Street's speculative run up in fuel prices, and the future of our
nation if it continues its nearly exclusive reliance on petroleum for
our energy needs? Do you have an opinion on this issue? Or do you
prefer to sit back, and play Let's You And Him Fight?*

Here's a thought for the military to reduce their dependence on
petroleum:
http://www.powerfilmsolar.com/products/military/armytents/index.htm

I'll bet you're clever enough to have figured out how to get your
tanks filled on the base, so you are unaffected by the rapid increase
in fuel prices. But we are soon going to be impacted by the increased
cost of getting goods to market, and the price inflation it will
cause. Unless we turn away from petroleum for our energy needs, the
threat will only grow.



* http://www.ericberne.com/games/games_people_play_LYAHF.htm

[kontiki[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> But we are soon going to be impacted by the increased
> cost of getting goods to market, and the price inflation it will
> cause. Unless we turn away from petroleum for our energy needs, the
> threat will only grow.

".. we are soon going to be impacted by increased cost..."? We already
are now Larry, where have you been the last few months. People have lost
their jobs, businesses have failed.... If you are reading this newsgroup
I would *assume* you now that general aviation is suffering badly. I
know you haven't noticed, but we already have changed the way we live
our lives in many ways. Obviously you are unaffected by all this and
hence can afford to be so narrow minded.

The simple fact is that we will always need petroleum in one form or
another for many more years, albeit not in the same percentage of GDP
that we have had in the past.

You, and others like you seem to think that the United States can simply
'cold turkey' our way out of needing *any* petroleum, that is naive.
Petroleum is used in everything from fertilizers to life saving medical
supplies, not just fuel. While we are (and have) reduced out use of it
considerably, it will an important part of our economy for many years
to come and unless we put in place the means by which we can reliably
obtain it quickly we impacting our national security way of life.

Too bad people like you can't grasp this concept or we wouldn't be
wasting time, bandwidth, jobs or wealth arguing about a problem instead
of actually solving it.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:41:28 -0400, kontiki >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> But we are soon going to be impacted by the increased
>> cost of getting goods to market, and the price inflation it will
>> cause. Unless we turn away from petroleum for our energy needs, the
>> threat will only grow.
>
>".. we are soon going to be impacted by increased cost..."? We already
>are now Larry, where have you been the last few months. People have lost
>their jobs, businesses have failed.... If you are reading this newsgroup
>I would *assume* you now that general aviation is suffering badly. I
>know you haven't noticed, but we already have changed the way we live
>our lives in many ways. Obviously you are unaffected by all this and
>hence can afford to be so narrow minded.
>

What you mention is only the beginning. I expect the situation to
become markedly worse over time.

>The simple fact is that we will always need petroleum in one form or
>another for many more years, albeit not in the same percentage of GDP
>that we have had in the past.
>
>You, and others like you seem to think that the United States can simply
>'cold turkey' our way out of needing *any* petroleum, that is naive.

It is also not what I'm suggesting.

>Petroleum is used in everything from fertilizers to life saving medical
>supplies, not just fuel. While we are (and have) reduced out use of it
>considerably, it will an important part of our economy for many years
>to come and unless we put in place the means by which we can reliably
>obtain it quickly we impacting our national security way of life.

There is no quick fix. To expect to see any affect on the price of
oil by permitting the unbridled construction of scores of unsightly
drilling platforms along our nation's scenic coastlines, or the
destructive exploration for oil in our nation's pristine national
parks is ridiculous; the effects won't be seen for many years, and
they will never significantly reduce oil prices.

Only those who lack the knowledge and information necessary to
accurately evaluate Bush's and McCain's arrogant opportunistic
proposals believe they are viable. I see them as a RNC smokescreen to
divert public outcry away from viable sustainable solutions toward
furthering the RNC agenda by taking advantage of opportunities public
outcry presents without regard for the consequences for others or the
good of our nation.

>
>Too bad people like you can't grasp this concept or we wouldn't be
>wasting time, bandwidth, jobs or wealth arguing about a problem instead
>of actually solving it.
>

Actually, it's unfortunate that you believe what you have been feed by
Bush and McCain without doing the research to learn how your leaders
are betraying you and the American people. Perhaps you can PLEASE
provide some credible citations that support your view? Please do a
little research before you espouse arrogant RNC dogma.



http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/great-article-o.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/41379.html
McCain's call for offshore oil drilling won't bring relief soon

WASHINGTON — Opening America's coastal waters to oil drilling, as
John McCain urged in an address Tuesday, is unlikely to provide
Americans with more oil for at least seven to 10 years.

That's the estimate from the American Petroleum Institute, the oil
industry trade group. ...

The Interior Department offered a wide range of estimates of how
much oil might be within reach of U.S. offshore drilling in a 2006
report. It estimated that the Outer Continental Shelf could hold
115.4 billion barrels. However, it also estimated that recoverable
reserves off U.S. coasts in areas now banned from production
probably hold only about 19 billion barrels. ...

One thousand million barrels equals 1 billion, so if there are 19
billion barrels in the areas McCain would open to drilling, that's
enough to provide about 920 days, or about 2.5 years, of current
U.S. consumption. ...



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/
Study: ANWR oil would have little impact
Heavy reliance on foreign imports would continue, agency finds

WASHINGTON - Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development
would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and
would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according
to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.

The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or
EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from
Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin
flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.

But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United
States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as
opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off
the market. ...

James Kendell, one of the authors of the study, said the refuge
would add to domestic production, but “when you’re talking of a
world oil market of over 75 million barrels a day, adding 900,000
barrels by 2025 is a drop in the bucket.”




http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/opinion/19thu1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
This is worse than a dumb idea. It is cruelly misleading. It will
make only a modest difference, at best, to prices at the pump, and
even then the benefits will be years away. It greatly exaggerates
America’s leverage over world oil prices. It is based on dubious
statistics. It diverts the public from the tough decisions that
need to be made about conservation. ...

The Energy Information Administration says that even if both
coasts were opened, prices would not begin to drop until 2030. The
only real beneficiaries will be the oil companies that are trying
to lock up every last acre of public land before their friends in
power -- Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney -- exit the
political stage. ...

The whole scheme is based on a series of fictions that range from
the egregious to the merely annoying. Democratic majority leader,
Senator Harry Reid, noted the worst of these on Wednesday: That a
country that consumes one-quarter of the world’s oil supply but
owns only 3 percent of its reserves can drill its way out of any
problem — whether it be high prices at the pump or dependence on
oil exported by unstable countries in Persian Gulf. ...

A lesser fiction, perpetrated by the oil companies and, to some
extent, by misleading government figures, is that huge deposits of
oil and gas on federal land have been closed off and industry has
had one hand tied behind its back by environmentalists, Democrats
and the offshore protections in place for 25 years.

The numbers suggest otherwise. Of the 36 billion barrels of oil
believed to lie on federal land, mainly in the Rocky Mountain West
and Alaska, almost two-thirds are accessible or will be after
various land-use and environmental reviews. And of the 89 billion
barrels of recoverable oil believed to lie offshore, the federal
Mineral Management Service says fourth-fifths is open to industry,
mostly in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaskan waters.

Clearly, the oil companies are not starved for resources. Further,
they do not seem to be doing nearly as much as they could with the
land to which they’ve already laid claim. Separate studies by the
House Committee on Natural Resources and the Wilderness Society, a
conservation group, show that roughly three-quarters of the 90
million-plus acres of federal land being leased by the oil
companies onshore and off are not being used to produce energy.
That is 68 million acres altogether, among them potentially highly
productive leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.







Spencer wrote this morning that no-bid contracts for the major
Western oil companies to tap into Iraq's reserves represent the
real Bush Doctrine. It seems the creed isn't limited to foreign
policy.
http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/more-blood-for-oil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:4Ta6k.214045$yE1.6603@attbi_s21:

>> Americans are a reactive bunch. If prices were to come back down,
>> those
>> SUVs would probably start flying out the door again. When prices
>> spiked back in '03, smaller cars became the top sellers in the U.S.,
>> but only for about 6 months. As soon as prices came back down, the
>> trucks and SUVs went
>> right back to the top of the shopping list.
>
> That's because trucks and SUVs are more useful than itty-bitty cars.
>
> Bottom line: SUVs can do all sorts of things that econocars cannot,
> while SUVs can do everything that the econocar can do, better. With
> one exception: Fuel consumption.
>
> I think we'll see a short-term boom for small-car manufacturers, as
> consumers shift to multiple vehicles, and use the ones that make the
> most sense for the task at hand.


You are an idiot.


Bertie

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-20, kontiki > wrote:
> Well that is all the more reason to start developing our own oil
> as a part of an overall energy plan to make us less dependent on
> foreign suppliers, boost the US economy, and put the world on notice
> that the United States is not a bunch of impotent dildos paralyzed
> by impotent politicians beholden to special interests, desperately
> hoping things will get better.

Maybe so, and I think it's inevitable that there will be more oil
extraction in North America in general.

However, that's not what I was trying to discuss (save the flippant
remark about using everyone else's first) - Jay thinks that exploiting
all North American oil is the silver bullet to the current rise in oil
prices. However, most North American oil that's not already being
exploited is what's euphemistically called 'unconventional sources' -
i.e. there might be a lot of it, but it's poor quality and expensive to
extract - and importantly the RATE at which you can extract it and turn
it into something useful is a fraction of the rate at which you can
turn, say, West Texas sweet crude into something useful.

If the US was extracting all it's oil, then no, we probably wouldn't be
having this discussion today.

We'd be having it this time next year, or perhaps the year after.

It simply won't make a big enough dent in global demand to bring a
return to the days of cheap oil and $1.25/gal mogas. The people rising
up as Jay suggests won't change this, unless it leads to a reduction in
world demand for oil.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> The sources whose content I cite generally have a reputation for
> presenting a balanced view, and I use them to bolster my arguments (or
> to quantify yours in this case) in discussion.
>

You often copy and paste without understanding the material or even reading
it. Sometimes you've posted material which proved your position to be
incorrect.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> There is no quick fix. To expect to see any affect on the price of
> oil by permitting the unbridled construction of scores of unsightly
> drilling platforms along our nation's scenic coastlines, or the
> destructive exploration for oil in our nation's pristine national
> parks is ridiculous; the effects won't be seen for many years, and
> they will never significantly reduce oil prices.
>

How far offshore would these drilling platforms be? What pristine national
parks are sought for oil exploration?

Opening new areas for drilling would have an effect on prices long before
any product from them reached consumers. Speculators are driving up the
price of oil by betting that demand in the future will be high and supply
will be low. If something happened that would affect future supply or
demand they would revise their bets.

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll schrieb:
> If something happened that would affect future supply or
> demand they would revise their bets.

ah, same as they did in April?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24114460/

#m

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Martin Hotze wrote:
>
> ah, same as they did in April?
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24114460/
>

No, something real. You should have read it before posting.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:38:18 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> The sources whose content I cite generally have a reputation for
>> presenting a balanced view, and I use them to bolster my arguments (or
>> to quantify yours in this case) in discussion.
>>
>
>You often copy and paste without understanding the material or even reading
>it. Sometimes you've posted material which proved your position to be
>incorrect.
>

Given the volume of my posts, errors are inevitable. Your use of the
word 'often' is hyperbole, and from such a pedant too.



--

"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
--George W. Bush, Trenton, NJ Sept 2002.


"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
--Vice President Cheney

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll schrieb:
> Martin Hotze wrote:
>> ah, same as they did in April?
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24114460/
>>
>
> No, something real. You should have read it before posting.

I read it (and I searched for an english written article), it made the
news here, too.
And BTW they found more last year, this also had minimal to no effect on
worldwide speculation.

#m

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll schrieb:
>> Martin Hotze wrote:
>>> ah, same as they did in April?
>>>
>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24114460/
>>>
>>
>> No, something real. You should have read it before posting.
>>
>
> I read it (and I searched for an english written article), it made the
> news here, too.
> And BTW they found more last year, this also had minimal to no effect
> on worldwide speculation.
>

You should have understood it before posting.

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll schrieb:

> You should have understood it before posting.

*bah*

#m

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:51:35 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

> Speculators are driving up the price of oil by betting that demand
>in the future will be high and supply will be low. If something
>happened that would affect future supply or demand they would
>revise their bets.

Not if the "something" that happened reduced world oil supplies, like
an Israeli attack on Iran, or Persian Gulf blockade, or ..., the
speculators would only press their bets higher.

I can't conceive of an event, short of government intervention, that
will cause oil speculators to reverse their bets other than a
worldwide plague or natural catastrophe massive enough to kill a
significant number of consumers. Perhaps you are able to provide a
few examples.

"Something" is happening now, but it's effect on the price of oil will
take some time to manifest itself in a meaningful way, if ever. And
it will continue to happen from now on if there is no significant
decline in oil prices. People are filling the seats of their
automobiles for their work commutes, leaving their cars home and
taking their bicycles (There's little question we can use the
exercise.) or motor-scooters instead. They are trading in their
vehicles that have poor fuel economy for higher MPG autos. And lo and
behold they are beginning to use rapid transit (up 20%). The American
people's days of toting 3,000 pounds of steel along with them on the
way to work or the grocery store are on their way out, probably for
good. Now that weight is being divided by more passengers, or being
left in the garage. And air carriers are cutting the number of
flights they offer, and AOPA tells us light GA flights are down 40%.
The golden age of the gasoline fueled automobile and cheap seats for
international tourists and business people are behind us (Air carriers
are beginning to demand minimum three days stay for coach pax.). Times
are indeed changin'.

With the currently devalued dollar resulting from Bush's massive
deficit war spending and artificially lowering interest rates in a
desperate attempt to keep our nation's economy afloat, I don't expect
to see the past level of prosperity achieved by the common man to
return for a good long time, if ever. It's going to be nothing but
price inflation until some sort of equilibrium is attained. Our
nation will have to turn from consuming imported goods and return to
exporting US made products, or it will drown in red ink.

Unregulated free trade, and poorly regulated investment markets enable
scoundrels to swindle the public. Privatization of governmental
functions provides corporations with monopolies. Ours is a nation of
the people, not of heartless corporate entities, and we the people
need to take back our rightful power to direct our nation's course and
policies. ...
--

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity
of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread
by thread, into the fabric of their lives." - Tolstoy

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:51:35 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:

> > Speculators are driving up the price of oil by betting that demand
> >in the future will be high and supply will be low. If something
> >happened that would affect future supply or demand they would
> >revise their bets.

> Not if the "something" that happened reduced world oil supplies, like
> an Israeli attack on Iran, or Persian Gulf blockade, or ..., the
> speculators would only press their bets higher.

Which if you read what was posted is exactly what he said.

> I can't conceive of an event, short of government intervention, that
> will cause oil speculators to reverse their bets other than a
> worldwide plague or natural catastrophe massive enough to kill a
> significant number of consumers. Perhaps you are able to provide a
> few examples.

Discovery of a large new field.

Oil sands and tar recovery plants break ground big time.

OPEC simply increases production.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:44:08 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>You should have understood it before posting.

What do you believe he misunderstood?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:25:02 GMT, wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:51:35 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>
>> > Speculators are driving up the price of oil by betting that demand
>> >in the future will be high and supply will be low. If something
>> >happened that would affect future supply or demand they would
>> >revise their bets.
>
>> Not if the "something" that happened reduced world oil supplies, like
>> an Israeli attack on Iran, or Persian Gulf blockade, or ..., the
>> speculators would only press their bets higher.
>
>Which if you read what was posted is exactly what he said.
>

I can't believe I'm being so obtuse as to have misunderstood his
meaning. Perhaps you can spell it out clearer for me.

>> I can't conceive of an event, short of government intervention, that
>> will cause oil speculators to reverse their bets other than a
>> worldwide plague or natural catastrophe massive enough to kill a
>> significant number of consumers. Perhaps you are able to provide a
>> few examples.
>
>Discovery of a large new field.
>

Such wouldn't come on-line for a decade, so it wouldn't have much of
an impact on oil prices. Given the likelihood that the country who
claimed such a fiend would become part of OPEC anyway, I don't see
that having any significant effect.

>Oil sands and tar recovery plants break ground big time.
>

How long will it take for them to produce a significant amount of
petroleum? Speculators work in a short-term time frame, on the order
of a year maximum, not decades.

>OPEC simply increases production.

I seriously doubt that they are able to significantly increase
production to keep up with ever increasing demand let alone reduce
speculation. The real question is where will the increased refining
capacity come from. Increases in production aren't very meaningful
without that.


It is significantly more probable production will be reduced by world
events than increased.

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

schrieb:

> OPEC simply increases production.

what are your guesses? double production cuts prices in half?

let's assume (for the sake of calculation) that world oil supplies last
right now for 200 years (500?). If you double production then this will
also be cut in half to 100 years (250, then) remaining. and then?

#m

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:25:02 GMT, wrote in
> >:

> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:51:35 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> >> > wrote in
> >> >:
> >
> >> > Speculators are driving up the price of oil by betting that demand
> >> >in the future will be high and supply will be low. If something
> >> >happened that would affect future supply or demand they would
> >> >revise their bets.
> >
> >> Not if the "something" that happened reduced world oil supplies, like
> >> an Israeli attack on Iran, or Persian Gulf blockade, or ..., the
> >> speculators would only press their bets higher.
> >
> >Which if you read what was posted is exactly what he said.
> >

> I can't believe I'm being so obtuse as to have misunderstood his
> meaning. Perhaps you can spell it out clearer for me.

What he said was:

"Speculators are driving up the price of oil by betting that demand
in the future will be high and supply will be low. If something
happened that would affect future supply or demand they would
revise their bets."

What part of "If something happened that would affect future supply
or demand they would revise their bets." are you having a problem
understanding?

Obviously speculators are going to "revise their bets" in a direction
determined by the preceived direction of "future supply or demand".

And while demand is unlikely to decrease, supply could easily increase.

> >> I can't conceive of an event, short of government intervention, that
> >> will cause oil speculators to reverse their bets other than a
> >> worldwide plague or natural catastrophe massive enough to kill a
> >> significant number of consumers. Perhaps you are able to provide a
> >> few examples.
> >
> >Discovery of a large new field.
> >

> Such wouldn't come on-line for a decade, so it wouldn't have much of
> an impact on oil prices. Given the likelihood that the country who
> claimed such a fiend would become part of OPEC anyway, I don't see
> that having any significant effect.

Irrelevant to futures prices which are based on perception.

One, lousy, insignificant tanker gets sunk and the price of oil jumps.

And, yeah, anything new will take a while to have an effect, but that's
irrelevant to the basic premise; new supplies will cause oil prices
to drop.

<snip>

> >OPEC simply increases production.

> I seriously doubt that they are able to significantly increase
> production to keep up with ever increasing demand let alone reduce
> speculation. The real question is where will the increased refining
> capacity come from. Increases in production aren't very meaningful
> without that.

Part of OPEC DID just increase production, so you are obviously wrong
about that.

OPEC is nothing more than a gentlemen's agreement and any member can
do whatever they feel meets their own interests at any time.

Were OPEC a company within a nation, the entire company would be
jailed for price fixing.

Refining has nothing to do with oil production or the cost of oil.

While the US could probably use a couple more refineries, the cost of
the end product has little to do with refining capacity unless a
significant part of the existing capacity goes off line for some
reason.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Martin Hotze > wrote:
> schrieb:

> > OPEC simply increases production.

> what are your guesses? double production cuts prices in half?

The price of a product and the supply are not related in a linear
fashion.

The price of a product is whatever people are willing to pay for it.

Last I heard, the production cost of a barrel of crude in the belly
of a tanker in the Gulf was around $1, though it is probably more
like $5 now.

> let's assume (for the sake of calculation) that world oil supplies last
> right now for 200 years (500?). If you double production then this will
> also be cut in half to 100 years (250, then) remaining. and then?

The total quantity of the world's oil supplies and how long they will
last has nothing to do with the current price.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

schrieb:
> Martin Hotze > wrote:
>> schrieb:
>
>>> OPEC simply increases production.
>
>> what are your guesses? double production cuts prices in half?
>
> The price of a product and the supply are not related in a linear
> fashion.

I know.

> The price of a product is whatever people are willing to pay for it.

I know. And your assumption that a higher production will lower the
price is not a given fact. Demand rises, so you have to produce more
than requested.

>> let's assume (for the sake of calculation) that world oil supplies last
>> right now for 200 years (500?). If you double production then this will
>> also be cut in half to 100 years (250, then) remaining. and then?
>
> The total quantity of the world's oil supplies and how long they will
> last has nothing to do with the current price.

I know. Still: lower fuel prices won't help you solve this problem - au
contraire.

#m

[Skylune]

On Jun 22, 12:05*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:51:35 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> > Speculators are driving up the price of oil by betting that demand
> >in the future will be high and supply will be low. *If something
> >happened that would affect future supply or demand they would
> >revise their bets.
>
> Not if the "something" that happened reduced world oil supplies, like
> an Israeli attack on Iran, or Persian Gulf blockade, or ..., the
> speculators would only press their bets higher. *
>
> I can't conceive of an event, short of government intervention, that
> will cause oil speculators to reverse their bets other than a
> worldwide plague or natural catastrophe massive enough to kill a
> significant number of consumers. *Perhaps you are able to provide a
> few examples.
>
> "Something" is happening now, but it's effect on the price of oil will
> take some time to manifest itself in a meaningful way, if ever. *And
> it will continue to happen from now on if there is no significant
> decline in oil prices. *People are filling the seats of their
> automobiles for their work commutes, leaving their cars home and
> taking their bicycles (There's little question we can use the
> exercise.) or motor-scooters instead. *They are trading in their
> vehicles that have poor fuel economy for higher MPG autos. *And lo and
> behold they are beginning to use rapid transit (up 20%). *The American
> people's days of toting 3,000 pounds of steel along with them on the
> way to work or the grocery store are on their way out, probably for
> good. *Now that weight is being divided by more passengers, or being
> left in the garage. *And air carriers are cutting the number of
> flights they offer, and AOPA tells us light GA flights are down 40%.
> The golden age of the gasoline fueled automobile and cheap seats for
> international tourists and business people are behind us (Air carriers
> are beginning to demand minimum three days stay for coach pax.). Times
> are indeed changin'. *
>
> With the currently devalued dollar resulting from Bush's massive
> deficit war spending and artificially lowering interest rates in a
> desperate attempt to keep our nation's economy afloat, I don't expect
> to see the past level of prosperity achieved by the common man to
> return for a good long time, if ever. *It's going to be nothing but
> price inflation until some sort of equilibrium is attained. *Our
> nation will have to turn from consuming imported goods and return to
> exporting US made products, or it will drown in red ink. *
>
> Unregulated free trade, and poorly regulated investment markets enable
> scoundrels to swindle the public. *Privatization of governmental
> functions provides corporations with monopolies. *Ours is a nation of
> the people, not of heartless corporate entities, and we the people
> need to take back our rightful power to direct our nation's course and
> policies. *...
> --
>
> "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
> greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
> obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity
> of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
> they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread
> by thread, into the fabric of their lives." *- Tolstoy

Just damn. Does this mean that you will sell/abandon your fuel
guzzling airplane, and take the bus instead? The irony of private
pleasure pilots bemoaning high avgas prices while simultaneously
attacking Bush/Cheney as whackos who would take steps to increase
crude supply is fantastic!

[Skylune]

On Jun 22, 12:41*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:25:02 GMT, wrote in
> >:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:51:35 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> >> > wrote in
> >> >:
>
> >> > Speculators are driving up the price of oil by betting that demand
> >> >in the future will be high and supply will be low. *If something
> >> >happened that would affect future supply or demand they would
> >> >revise their bets.
>
> >> Not if the "something" that happened reduced world oil supplies, like
> >> an Israeli attack on Iran, or Persian Gulf blockade, or ..., the
> >> speculators would only press their bets higher. *
>
> >Which if you read what was posted is exactly what he said.
>
> I can't believe I'm being so obtuse as to have misunderstood his
> meaning. *Perhaps you can spell it out clearer for me.
>
> >> I can't conceive of an event, short of government intervention, that
> >> will cause oil speculators to reverse their bets other than a
> >> worldwide plague or natural catastrophe massive enough to kill a
> >> significant number of consumers. *Perhaps you are able to provide a
> >> few examples.
>
> >Discovery of a large new field.
>
> Such wouldn't come on-line for a decade, so it wouldn't have much of
> an impact on oil prices. *Given the likelihood that the country who
> claimed such a fiend would become part of OPEC anyway, I don't see
> that having any significant effect.
>
> >Oil sands and tar recovery plants break ground big time.
>
> How long will it take for them to produce a significant amount of
> petroleum? *Speculators work in a short-term time frame, on the order
> of a year maximum, not decades.
>
> >OPEC simply increases production.
>
> I seriously doubt that they are able to significantly increase
> production to keep up with ever increasing demand let alone reduce
> speculation. *The real question is where will the increased refining
> capacity come from. *Increases in production aren't very meaningful
> without that.
>
> It is significantly more probable production will be reduced by world
> events than increased. *- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Given your prior comment (unsupported) that commodities speculation
has contributed to the price spike (correct), any indication of
significant future crude supply would have a beneficial effect in the
near term would be a logical conclusion. But, that would not allow
for the requisite Bush bashing.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-06-22, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> However, that's not what I was trying to discuss (save the flippant
> remark about using everyone else's first) - Jay thinks that exploiting
> all North American oil is the silver bullet to the current rise in oil
> prices.

I didn't say that, and I don't believe it. I know that that alone won't
bring oil prices down to $50 a barrel. OTOH, it cannot help but lower
prices, and that's something we all need. Not to exploit oil resources that
we already have is simply criminal.

> However, most North American oil that's not already being
> exploited is what's euphemistically called 'unconventional sources' -
> i.e. there might be a lot of it, but it's poor quality and expensive to
> extract - and importantly the RATE at which you can extract it and turn
> it into something useful is a fraction of the rate at which you can
> turn, say, West Texas sweet crude into something useful.

Don't be so sure. That's not true of both the Alaskan and North Dakota
fields, for example.

> If the US was extracting all it's oil, then no, we probably wouldn't be
> having this discussion today.
> We'd be having it this time next year, or perhaps the year after.

This is the same the-sky-is-falling rhetoric that enviro-wackos have been
spouting for years.

> It simply won't make a big enough dent in global demand to bring a
> return to the days of cheap oil and $1.25/gal mogas.

I never said it would, and I don't believe it.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:50:22 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote in
>:

>On 2008-06-22, Dylan Smith > wrote:
>> However, that's not what I was trying to discuss (save the flippant
>> remark about using everyone else's first) - Jay thinks that exploiting
>> all North American oil is the silver bullet to the current rise in oil
>> prices.
>
>I didn't say that, and I don't believe it. I know that that alone won't
>bring oil prices down to $50 a barrel.

You will NEVER see US$50/barrel again. The ever increasing world
demand, investor speculation in a limited commodity, and the plunging
value of the US dollar will prevent it.

>OTOH, it cannot help but lower prices,

When might a reasonable person expect the domestic oil produced to
have any significant downward impact on fuel prices in the US, in your
opinion?

>and that's something we all need. Not to exploit oil resources that
>we already have is simply criminal.

It is even more criminal for our nation's leaders to fail to fund
massive renewable energy technology research, so that we may throw off
the oppressive yoke of petroleum dependence once and for all.

>
>> However, most North American oil that's not already being
>> exploited is what's euphemistically called 'unconventional sources' -
>> i.e. there might be a lot of it, but it's poor quality and expensive to
>> extract - and importantly the RATE at which you can extract it and turn
>> it into something useful is a fraction of the rate at which you can
>> turn, say, West Texas sweet crude into something useful.
>
>Don't be so sure. That's not true of both the Alaskan and North Dakota
>fields, for example.
>
>> If the US was extracting all it's oil, then no, we probably wouldn't be
>> having this discussion today.
>> We'd be having it this time next year, or perhaps the year after.
>
And if the US was extracting all it's oil, we'd be having this
discussion a year or two after that.

>This is the same the-sky-is-falling rhetoric that enviro-wackos have been
>spouting for years.

And because nobody listened, look what happened.

>
>> It simply won't make a big enough dent in global demand to bring a
>> return to the days of cheap oil and $1.25/gal mogas.
>
>I never said it would, and I don't believe it [will].

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 06:45:14 -0700 (PDT), Skylune
> wrote in
>:

>But, that would not allow for the requisite Bush bashing.

I'm happy to see that you find Bush bashing required, if too late.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Skylune > wrote in news:6a371136-db64-4cf5-a5a0-
:


>
> Just damn. Does this mean that you will sell/abandon your fuel
> guzzling airplane, and take the bus instead? The irony of private
> pleasure pilots bemoaning high avgas prices while simultaneously
> attacking Bush/Cheney as whackos who would take steps to increase
> crude supply is fantastic!
>


Huh?


I think Bush and Cheney are idiots because they are. I'd also like gas to
be 25 cents a gallon, but it's not an either/or deal...



Bertie

[[email protected]]

Martin Hotze > wrote:
> schrieb:
> > Martin Hotze > wrote:
> >> schrieb:
> >
> >>> OPEC simply increases production.
> >
> >> what are your guesses? double production cuts prices in half?
> >
> > The price of a product and the supply are not related in a linear
> > fashion.

> I know.

> > The price of a product is whatever people are willing to pay for it.

> I know. And your assumption that a higher production will lower the
> price is not a given fact. Demand rises, so you have to produce more
> than requested.

True enough, and given that the majority of the supply is controlled
by a group that throttles the supply to keep the price high, it is
doubtfull prices will drop much unless there is new production not
controlled by that group in spite of the recent Saudi announcement
that they are increasing supply.

Indonesia has left OPEC, new fields have been discovered in Brasil,
Mexico has huge untapped fields but Mexican "culture", for want of a
better word, currently keeps those from being utilized, Russia has
huge fields they can't currently get at because they don't have the
technology, Africa has huge amounts of oil but is so unstable no one
will go there, the US and Canada have huge amounts of oil and tar
sands but the enviros won't let those be developed, ad nauseum.

Oil supplies available on the market are mostly a political problem.

> >> let's assume (for the sake of calculation) that world oil supplies last
> >> right now for 200 years (500?). If you double production then this will
> >> also be cut in half to 100 years (250, then) remaining. and then?
> >
> > The total quantity of the world's oil supplies and how long they will
> > last has nothing to do with the current price.

> I know. Still: lower fuel prices won't help you solve this problem - au
> contraire.

See above; there is lots of oil out there.

The technology to synthesize petroleum products is nearly a century old.

It just costs too much compared to pumping it out of the ground.

Once the stuff in the ground is gone, we just start synthesizing it.

Yeah, the price may go up, but one would hope that in the span of
hundreds of years, the technology would improve some.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:35:03 GMT, wrote in
>:

>Once the stuff in the ground is gone, we just start synthesizing it.

Why not start growing Jojoba now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel#Efficiency_and_economic_arguments

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:35:03 GMT, wrote in
> >:

> >Once the stuff in the ground is gone, we just start synthesizing it.

> Why not start growing Jojoba now?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel#Efficiency_and_economic_arguments

Nothing is stopping you from going for it if you really believe you
will get a return on your money.

Let us know how it works out for you.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-23, > wrote:
> See above; there is lots of oil out there.

It's not just the quantity: it's the quality and the *rate* at which you
can turn it into something useful. The Canadians *are* exploiting the
tar sands, but it's poor quality and the *rate* at which they can
turn it into something useful is quite slow, despite the quantity.

This becomes a problem when the *rate* of consumption goes ever upwards
- if the *rate* of extraction can't keep up, prices go up.

As for the Saudis, the extra oil they can pump is also lower quality
oil, where the rate you can turn it into something useful is much lower.

> It just costs too much compared to pumping it out of the ground.
> Once the stuff in the ground is gone, we just start synthesizing it.

But it'll be at a much lower rate (regardless of the absolute quantity)
than the cheap and easy light crude.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2008-06-23, > wrote:
> > See above; there is lots of oil out there.

> It's not just the quantity: it's the quality and the *rate* at which you
> can turn it into something useful. The Canadians *are* exploiting the
> tar sands, but it's poor quality and the *rate* at which they can
> turn it into something useful is quite slow, despite the quantity.

> This becomes a problem when the *rate* of consumption goes ever upwards
> - if the *rate* of extraction can't keep up, prices go up.

> As for the Saudis, the extra oil they can pump is also lower quality
> oil, where the rate you can turn it into something useful is much lower.

> > It just costs too much compared to pumping it out of the ground.
> > Once the stuff in the ground is gone, we just start synthesizing it.

> But it'll be at a much lower rate (regardless of the absolute quantity)
> than the cheap and easy light crude.

I said "Once the stuff in the ground is gone...".

Where do you get cheap and easy light crude "Once the stuff in the ground
is gone"?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[kontiki[_2_]]

Dylan Smith wrote:
>
> It's not just the quantity: it's the quality and the *rate* at which you
> can turn it into something useful.

Then applying that logic to ethanol would make one wonder why we even
bother trying to turn corn into fuel. We increase food prices, produce
food shortages and end up with a product that takes as much energy to
produce as it provides as a fuel.

The reasonr is stupidity... lack of leadership and blind belief in the
'hope' promised by so called 'leaders' of a religious movement.

Very much like Adolph Hitler and the late 1930's in Germany. Combine
stupidity with religious zeal for an ideal and there you have it.

> The Canadians *are* exploiting the
> tar sands, but it's poor quality and the *rate* at which they can
> turn it into something useful is quite slow, despite the quantity.
>

Again, see my statement about ethanol.

> This becomes a problem when the *rate* of consumption goes ever upwards
> - if the *rate* of extraction can't keep up, prices go up.
>

Duh... we are a growing economy... unless you prefer recession. Or...
how about depression? That you fulfill the desires of the elite.

> As for the Saudis, the extra oil they can pump is also lower quality
> oil, where the rate you can turn it into something useful is much lower.
>

Uhhh please cite some credentials you might have regarding your ability
to judge the worls various supplies of crude oil regarding 'quality'.
Thank You.... I'll hold my breath while I wait.

>> It just costs too much compared to pumping it out of the ground.
>> Once the stuff in the ground is gone, we just start synthesizing it.
>
> But it'll be at a much lower rate (regardless of the absolute quantity)
> than the cheap and easy light crude.
>

Lord have mercy on us. We are led by idiots.

[kontiki[_2_]]

wrote:

> Where do you get cheap and easy light crude "Once the stuff in the ground
> is gone"?
>

Don't expect an intelligent answer to your question.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

kontiki wrote:
>
> Then applying that logic to ethanol would make one wonder why we even
> bother trying to turn corn into fuel. We increase food prices, produce
> food shortages and end up with a product that takes as much energy to
> produce as it provides as a fuel.
>

I think you're wrong about that. I think it takes more energy to produce
ethanol from corn than it provides as a fuel.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-25, kontiki > wrote:
> Dylan Smith wrote:
>>
>> It's not just the quantity: it's the quality and the *rate* at which you
>> can turn it into something useful.
>
> Then applying that logic to ethanol would make one wonder why we even
> bother trying to turn corn into fuel.

It makes me wonder too - ethanol from corn is really a pretty bad way to
do it. All I can think is that it's not about energy, it's all about
subsidising farmers.

>> This becomes a problem when the *rate* of consumption goes ever upwards
>> - if the *rate* of extraction can't keep up, prices go up.
>
> Duh... we are a growing economy... unless you prefer recession. Or...
> how about depression? That you fulfill the desires of the elite.

Which is precisely my point; if we are to avoid recession or depression,
since economic expansion *depends* (at the moment) on an increase of
energy usage, exploiting unconventional oil sources *alone* will not
suffice because it won't provide sufficient *rate* regardless of
quantity. It needs something else too (not ethanol from corn) which is
going to require ingenuity.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[kontiki[_2_]]

Dylan Smith wrote:
>
> Which is precisely my point; if we are to avoid recession or depression,
> since economic expansion *depends* (at the moment) on an increase of
> energy usage, exploiting unconventional oil sources *alone* will not
> suffice because it won't provide sufficient *rate* regardless of
> quantity. It needs something else too (not ethanol from corn) which is
> going to require ingenuity.
>

Provide evidence that will back up your statements.

There is also a price stability benefit (a reduction in the volatility
that has pushed crude oil prices so high) of being energy independent in
terms of exploiting our own mineral resources... regardless of quantity.

When you depend upon raw material supplied from regions of the world
that are geopolitically unstable you tend to have volatile price
extremes and speculating. Any good business would realize that one way
to mitigate that is to avoid single sourced commodities. We as a counret
don't seem to have any business sense in that regard and it seesm now
that our cruse oil suppliers know it. Bush goes there hat in hand to
beg for lower prices and more production like a whiny kid and they
are laughing at how impotent the once great United States is. Its a joke.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:51:07 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<fvt6k.215265$yE1.20716@attbi_s21>:

>No viable electric vehicle existed then, and none exist today.

This auto dealer near you may have what you're looking for:
http://www.amescars.com

Check out the Zenn Electric Car:
http://www.amescars.com/inventory/index.cfm?fuseaction=inventory.view&inventoryID=536572&status=1
Description:
2008 Zenn Electric Car 2.22 LX WITH AIR CONDITIONING
****ALL ELECTRIC*****FRONT WHEEL DRIVE!!! CITY COMMUTER!!! CAPABLE OF
35 MPH AND 40 TO 50 MILES RANGE!!!!! JUST PLUG IN TO CHARGE!!! DRIVE
FOR 1 CENT PER MILE AND NO MAINTENANCE!!!! *****ORDER YOUR 2008 ZENN
ELECTRIC CARS TODAY***** WE HAVE SPECIAL PRICING ON THE NEW ZENN WITH
AIR CONDITIONING, ALLOY WHEELS, CD PLAYER, POWER WINDOWS, HEAT, REAR
DEFROST, REMOTE ENTRY, AND MORE!!!!

Price: $17,540.00
Features: - Air Conditioning - Alloy Wheels - AM/FM Stereo Radio
- Bucket Seats - Cloth Upholstery - Compact Disc Player
- Courtesy Lights - Dual Sport Mirrors - Front Bucket Seats
- Keyless Entry - Map Lights - Power Door Locks
- Power Windows - Radial Tires - Rear Window Defroster
- Rear Window Wiper - Retractable Mirrors

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-25, kontiki > wrote:
> There is also a price stability benefit (a reduction in the volatility
> that has pushed crude oil prices so high) of being energy independent in
> terms of exploiting our own mineral resources... regardless of quantity.

The oil will still be traded on the global market. The UK and Norway are
both net oil exporters, yet their oil consumers are still subject to the
same price fluctuations because they still have to buy at market price.

China tried price controls. It created massive shortages. Chinese demand
is expected to go *up* when price controls are relaxed despite the big
jump in prices it will bring - because all price controls did was to
crimp supply.

> When you depend upon raw material supplied from regions of the world
> that are geopolitically unstable you tend to have volatile price
> extremes and speculating. Any good business would realize that one way
> to mitigate that is to avoid single sourced commodities.

Your oil is *hardly* single sourced, and you import a lot more oil from
your direct neighbours (Canada and Mexico) than you do from the *entire*
Middle East and then some. Your domestic production alone is almost as
much as imports from *all* OPEC countries. The US imports more oil from
non-OPEC countries than it does from OPEC countries. Imports of over
100K bbl/day come from 18 different countries. Oil is single sourced?
Pull the other one, it has bells on.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[kontiki[_2_]]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> Your oil is *hardly* single sourced, and you import a lot more oil from
> your direct neighbours (Canada and Mexico) than you do from the *entire*
> Middle East and then some. Your domestic production alone is almost as
> much as imports from *all* OPEC countries. The US imports more oil from
> non-OPEC countries than it does from OPEC countries. Imports of over
> 100K bbl/day come from 18 different countries. Oil is single sourced?
> Pull the other one, it has bells on.
>

Many a company (by that I mean a business entity that is responsible for
making a profit Vs., deficits decade after decade and BSing the
shareholders into going along with their dumbassed schemes) has made
a stragetic decision to manufacture their own (insert important key part
of their product line here) rather than subject themselves to unstable
and/or fickle suppliers.

Those are usually the companies that are still in business by the way.

[kontiki[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Skylune > wrote in news:6a371136-db64-4cf5-a5a0-
> :
>
>
>> Just damn. Does this mean that you will sell/abandon your fuel
>> guzzling airplane, and take the bus instead? The irony of private
>> pleasure pilots bemoaning high avgas prices while simultaneously
>> attacking Bush/Cheney as whackos who would take steps to increase
>> crude supply is fantastic!
>>
>
>
> Huh?
>
>
> I think Bush and Cheney are idiots because they are. I'd also like gas to
> be 25 cents a gallon, but it's not an either/or deal...
>

you missed the entire point of his post.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

kontiki > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Skylune > wrote in
>> news:6a371136-db64-4cf5-a5a0-
>> :
>>
>>
>>> Just damn. Does this mean that you will sell/abandon your fuel
>>> guzzling airplane, and take the bus instead? The irony of private
>>> pleasure pilots bemoaning high avgas prices while simultaneously
>>> attacking Bush/Cheney as whackos who would take steps to increase
>>> crude supply is fantastic!
>>>
>>
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>>
>> I think Bush and Cheney are idiots because they are. I'd also like
>> gas to be 25 cents a gallon, but it's not an either/or deal...
>>
>
> you missed the entire point of his post.
>

No, you missed the entire point of my reply.


Bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

on 6/22/2008 9:50 AM Larry Dighera said the following:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:38:18 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> The sources whose content I cite generally have a reputation for
>>> presenting a balanced view, and I use them to bolster my arguments (or
>>> to quantify yours in this case) in discussion.
>>>
>> You often copy and paste without understanding the material or even reading
>> it. Sometimes you've posted material which proved your position to be
>> incorrect.
>>
>
> Given the volume of my posts, errors are inevitable.

Boggle. You value quantity over quality, then? There's an obvious cure...

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:01:41 -0500, Rich Ahrens >
wrote in >:

>on 6/22/2008 9:50 AM Larry Dighera said the following:
>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:38:18 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>> The sources whose content I cite generally have a reputation for
>>>> presenting a balanced view, and I use them to bolster my arguments (or
>>>> to quantify yours in this case) in discussion.
>>>>
>>> You often copy and paste without understanding the material or even reading
>>> it. Sometimes you've posted material which proved your position to be
>>> incorrect.
>>>
>>
>> Given the volume of my posts, errors are inevitable.
>
>Boggle. You value quantity over quality, then? There's an obvious cure...

When was the last time you composed an on-topic, quality article for
rec.aviation.piloting?

You call yourself a pilot, but you only berate your fellows.

Have you nothing redeeming to contribute? Or do you limit your
participation to facilitating anarchy through the servers under
IPHouse control?

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

on 6/29/2008 10:47 AM Larry Dighera said the following:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:01:41 -0500, Rich Ahrens >
> wrote in >:
>
>> on 6/22/2008 9:50 AM Larry Dighera said the following:
>>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:38:18 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>>> > wrote in
>>> >:
>>>
>>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>>> The sources whose content I cite generally have a reputation for
>>>>> presenting a balanced view, and I use them to bolster my arguments (or
>>>>> to quantify yours in this case) in discussion.
>>>>>
>>>> You often copy and paste without understanding the material or even reading
>>>> it. Sometimes you've posted material which proved your position to be
>>>> incorrect.
>>>>
>>> Given the volume of my posts, errors are inevitable.
>> Boggle. You value quantity over quality, then? There's an obvious cure...
>
> When was the last time you composed an on-topic, quality article for
> rec.aviation.piloting?

Probably more recently than you produced anything original, as opposed
to your constant cut-and-paste jobs. And how on-topic are all your
netkkop posts, political blather, etc."

I notice you didn't answer the question.

> You call yourself a pilot, but you only berate your fellows.

Nope, I ridicule idiots occasionally, and there have been more occasions
calling for it lately than usual. You're certainly not my fellow. You
just happen to be a prime example who is constantly pasting targets on
his forehead.

> Have you nothing redeeming to contribute? Or do you limit your
> participation to facilitating anarchy through the servers under
> IPHouse control?

Now that is a truly lame attempt at netkkopping, Larry. Whatcha gonna
do, whine to my news admin? Usenet *is* anarchy, by definition. It needs
no promotion or facilitation. If you need to be coddled, go sign up with
AOL or something.