Avgas availability

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

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

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

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

Matt Whiting wrote:

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


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

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5&q=roy+beck&h

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

"ktbr" wrote in message
...


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5&q=roy+beck&h

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


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

Slippery slope to say the least.

Robert M. Gary wrote:

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

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

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


Now you are talking sense again.

Matt Barrow wrote:


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

Slippery slope to say the least.



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

ktbr wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which in part says, "The Coastal Plain of ANWR's 1002 area is the nation's
single greatest onshore oil reserve. The USGS estimates that it contains a
mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ktbr wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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