Gas Prices -- Help at last?

Bottled water in America is a very effective I.Q. test.

Maybe where you live, but not around here. Run the normal series of tests
that any keeper of marine fish runs on his tank on my tap water and then
tell me it's dumb to pay $1/gallon for bottled water. Next Wednesday I
have a job replacing a toilet. Different water company. The old one
clogged up with iron and other deposits within two years of installation.
The plumbing salesman asked "and she drinks that?"

Yech.

Sounds like you folks need a new well? (And/or water treatment plant?)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Just to keep things pure, next time I'll make the subject "AVgas Prices --
Help at Last?"

so they will refine 100LL at the new site?

At this stage of the discussion, there's no way to know.

It's doubtful, at best, however, given the fact that 100LL is about to be
regulated out of existence in America.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Refining capacity for gasoline has increased 3X over the period while no
new refineries were built.

No thanks to our government, BTW.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The question was rhetorical. The point is, it's a bit disingenuous for
the oil companies to claim they need to build new refineries when they are
the ones who have chosen to close the ones they had.

Source?

It will make fascinating reading, trying to discern the real reasons that an
oil company would close a badly needed oil refinery.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:Ij02f.465927$xm3.216500@attbi_s21...
The question was rhetorical. The point is, it's a bit disingenuous for
the oil companies to claim they need to build new refineries when they
are the ones who have chosen to close the ones they had.

Source?

What do you mean "source"? You posted the source. Duh.

It will make fascinating reading, trying to discern the real reasons that
an oil company would close a badly needed oil refinery.

I agree.

The fact that the refineries were closed is indisputable. So either they
closed a badly needed refinery, or they closed a refinery they didn't need.
Dozens of times. If you have information that suggests "the real reasons
that an oil company would close a badly needed oil refinery", I'm all ears.

Personally, I think the more likely answer is that the oil refinery wasn't
all that badly needed in the first place.

In any case, whether the refineries are needed now or not, that doesn't
justify blatantly violating the legislative rules for lawmaking, nor does it
show that the oil companies need the US government to bend over backwards to
subsidize their refineries.

Pete

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:u802f.226888$084.41833@attbi_s22...
[...]
Face it, we've "regulated" ourselves into much of this mess.

Yeah, right. We'd be SO much better off if we'd just instead allowed
ourselves to be "unregulated" into the unmitigated environmental disaster
oil companies (and others, of course) would have created absent those
regulations.

And don't fool yourself -- this oil/gas price situation is a mess that
could ultimately lead to a world-wide economic downturn.

Yup, it sure could. But whatever happens, it will be a minor shadow of what
could have occurred with long-term environmental destruction.

Pete

In fact, the removal of onerous legislative barriers -- which is what
this bill attempts (and fails, BTW) to do -- will once again allow the
free market to prevail.

The free market fails when costs can be passed on to others without
recourse. Pollution passes costs on to others without recourse,
sometimes permanently. "Onerous legislative barriers" are one way to
ensure that this doesn't happen (as much).

They are a Good Thing.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 8 Oct 2005 15:04:49 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

Which either means (a) your theory doesn't hold water, or (b) Europeans
simply don't have the scientific and industrial wherewithal to develop
alternative fuels, whatever the cost.

yeah, sometimes we really come out of our caves, but mostly only because of
the tourists.

#m
--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 01:05:01 GMT, George Patterson wrote:

Diesel's been around for over 100 years. And the only reason most European
governments keep the taxes low on it is that it's the primary heating fuel. Tax
diesel, and lots of people would start pumping their heating oil into their cars.

taxation for heating oil is different than for car diesel. and it is not
allowed to use heating oil in your car (special colored stuff, can be
traced)

#m
--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 18:42:48 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

hmm. what is insane about it? so you are in need to be conservative about
spending gas (or have a good income) and you are more likely willed to
search for alternatives.

Why is it sane to artificially raise the price of gas? Does the end justify
the means? Conservation and alternative fuels are certainly some to
look forward to, but at what price?

at any price.

Do you understand how the "solutions" throughout Europe might not
be applicable in parts of the US?

sure; solar panels might be a good idea for Spain, but not for Sweden,
hydrogen powered vehicles might be a good solution everywhere, bio-diesel
might be as well a good idea. Research in insulation materials is a good
idea eveywhere (it is good both for cold and warm climate).

For example, while public transportation
could be more efficient than autos in major US cities, it would be much
more challenging to create public transportation in areas where houses
are 20+ miles from the nearest store. Tell me how conservation, alternative
fuels, and public transportation would work in Alaska or in areas of US
farmlands.


it is not only about oil. it is about electricity, water, etc - all those
natural resssources.

Looking at it from a different direction, it could be argued that the
population densities that lead to efficient public transportation are
a symptom of overpopulation. We simply shouldn't have that many
people trying to live in such a small area.

so send them all to Iowa :-)

#m

--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html