Avgas availability

ktbr wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

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

Oh puhleeze. You bunch of anti-American/Anti-profit
pinheads sicken me. It's always "Big Oil"'s fault... or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I give up on you people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:


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


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


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

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:


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


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

"ktbr" wrote in message
...
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:


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


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

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

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

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

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

"ktbr" wrote in message
...
Bob Fry wrote:

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

We tried that over a hundred years ago. Didn't work. See
"anti-trust".

Here Fry shows his total ignorance again.

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


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


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

Fry, you need to get back on your meds.

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

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:
Bob Fry wrote:
"MB" == Matt Barrow writes:
MB Got a cite for that?
Usenet ain't a peer reviewed journal, ferchrissake.
Requests for
"cites" are almost always a signal the requestor has been
effectively out-argued. If the requestor really wanted a cite
they'd google for it.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

"ktbr" wrote in message
...
Bob Fry wrote:

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

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


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


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

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

On May 18, 8:07 am, Bob Fry wrote:
"kt" == kontiki writes:

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

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

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

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

Rrobert, MBA, Master in Finance