$60.00 a Barrel Oil $3.00 a Gallon Gas Now Likely by Nov.2nd
Tabernacle
it climbs another sixty eight cents the day after that as the price
for crude oil (thanks to AWOL Georgie and his FUBAR Foreign Policies)
is now climbing out of control,which is (as I and many others think)
going to be the main reason (far and above all others) as why AWOL
Georgie is now going to be defeated this November 2nd BIGTIME!
Heck even you Rightards out there can understand that when a gallon of
gas down the street from your house (or in the case of you Rightards
your cave) climbs $.20 to $.30 in less than two weeks your Boi Bush is
going to be in Deep Deep Shit!
BlackWater
Actually, the latest price-rise had nothing to do with Iraq
at all ... it was caused by a strike amongst Nigerian oil
workers.
Bring it on!
wrote:
$60 oil means about $1.50 per gallon of crude before refining,
transportation and taxes, so $3.00 is a reasonable estimate; but don't
you think the oil companies will hold down prices until November 2?
If George wins, they can then raise prices with impunity - a nice
return for their support, and the sky's the limit.
BlackWater
>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:52:28 GMT, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>
>>>Heck even you Rightards out there can understand that when a gallon of
>>>gas down the street from your house (or in the case of you Rightards
>>>your cave) climbs $.20 to $.30 in less than two weeks your Boi Bush is
>>>going to be in Deep Deep Shit!
>>
>> Actually, the latest price-rise had nothing to do with Iraq
>> at all ... it was caused by a strike amongst Nigerian oil
>> workers.
>
>Your failure to see these as exclusive instead of additive is
>ridiculous.
Your attempt to load every factor contributing to the
final cost of oil onto the back of the Iraqi camel is
what's ridiculous. The Nigerian strike has nothing to
do with Iraq or the USA. It's an internal matter ...
the workers want more money.
Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )
retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:52:28 GMT, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>
> >>Heck even you Rightards out there can understand that when a gallon of
> >>gas down the street from your house (or in the case of you Rightards
> >>your cave) climbs $.20 to $.30 in less than two weeks your Boi Bush is
> >>going to be in Deep Deep Shit!
> >
> > Actually, the latest price-rise had nothing to do with Iraq
> > at all ... it was caused by a strike amongst Nigerian oil
> > workers.
>
> Your failure to see these as exclusive instead of additive is
> ridiculous.
>
Additive to what? Having the Middle East oil in the hands of people who
aren't under international sanctions is in the midterm and long term
best interests of the United States. Saddam was under international
sanctions.
--
"...and least of all would have believed that in time of deadly need men
could die at arm’s length of plenty, sooner than touch food they did not
know. In vain the interpreters interpreted; in vain his two policemen
showed in vigorous pantomime what should be done. The starving crept
away to their bark and weeds, grubs, leaves, and clay, and left the open
sacks untouched.", Rudyard Kipling, "William the Conqueror"
Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )
"Bring it on!" wrote:
>
> On 11 Oct 2004 06:37:05 -0700, taberna...@hotmail.com (Tabernacle)
> wrote:
>
> >Forty nine cents one day, a dollar thirty six cents the next day then
> >it climbs another sixty eight cents the day after that as the price
> >for crude oil (thanks to AWOL Georgie and his FUBAR Foreign Policies)
> >is now climbing out of control,which is (as I and many others think)
> >going to be the main reason (far and above all others) as why AWOL
> >Georgie is now going to be defeated this November 2nd BIGTIME!
> >
> >Heck even you Rightards out there can understand that when a gallon of
> >gas down the street from your house (or in the case of you Rightards
> >your cave) climbs $.20 to $.30 in less than two weeks your Boi Bush is
> >going to be in Deep Deep Shit!
>
> $60 oil means about $1.50 per gallon of crude before refining,
> transportation and taxes, so $3.00 is a reasonable estimate;
>
Really? See http://quotes.tradingcharts.com/futures/quotes/HU.html
> but don't
> you think the oil companies will hold down prices until November 2?
>
What are the oil companies doing? They are providing you with gasoline
in a competitive market. They have some of the supply but much of it is
coming from Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations which long ago
nationalized their oil industries and sell to the market at market
and/or contract pricing.
> If George wins, they can then raise prices with impunity - a nice
> return for their support, and the sky's the limit.
>
Bush is trying to make sure we have the oil we need by making sure that
the countries in the Middle East are not run by madmen like Saddam. That
is a vital US national interest. On the one hand, you complain about
this and insist that Bush shouldn't use US military force to protect our
vital interests in the Middle East and then on the other you complain
about high oil prices. Imagine what would happen if OPEC shut off
supplies. What would the price be then?
kim1
If you truly believe GW has our best interest in mind, why has oil
doubled in price during his administration? Who stands to gain the
most from this-the average American? Don't try to tell me there are
other factors for the increase. I realize that. The fact is, the
administration controls those factors too.
Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )
It hasn't doubled in price during his administration. Trying to operate
in the long term interest of the US might carry a short term cost
premium. Even you could probably understand that.
> Who stands to gain the
> most from this-the average American? Don't try to tell me there are
> other factors for the increase. I realize that. The fact is, the
> administration controls those factors too.
>
Are there any Liberals left around here who are actually sane?
GW *AWOL* Chimpzilla
It was $25.70 when AWOL Bush took office. Today it closed at $53.72. Did your
momma teach you to lie like that? Or is it your Rovian hypnosis? Wake up!!
>
--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas -- that says, fool
me once, shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
http://www.diymedia.net/audio/mp3/tdntb-bushwack2.mp3
Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )
Big Al wrote:
>
> "BlackWater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
> news:WOlqQTogEmkzHG...@4ax.com...
> If the Iraqis were able to pump oil without their pipelines and facilities
> getting blown up, they could more than make up any potential lost production
> from Nigeria. Another point; Bush's release from the Strategic Petroleum
> Reserve in the wake of Ivan has not slowed energy prices from going upward.
>
Here's a giant clue that everyone should try to follow: It's the
STRATEGIC Petroleum Reserve, not the TACTICAL Petroleum Reserve. It's
not designed to mitigate daily microfluctuations in the futures market.
It's there so that we can have oil if imported oil sources are seriously
curtailed. Playing around with it for tactical responses means that it
won't be there for what it is designed for.
Now if we want to design a tactical energy response system where the
government and/or industry caches high grade crude and refined products
ready to instantly move to market as prices move, then we can do that.
If we do it, we should co-ordinate with the rest of the market so we can
work together. This means Europe, Japan, China, etc.
--
"...and least of all would have believed that in time of deadly need men
could die at arm’s length of plenty, sooner than touch food they did not
know. In vain the interpreters interpreted; in vain his two policemen
showed in vigorous pantomime what should be done. The starving crept
away to their bark and weeds, grubs, leaves, and clay, and left the open
sacks untouched.", Rudyard Kipling, "William the Conqueror"
(!!)
Tempest
Big Al wrote:
> "BlackWater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
> news:WOlqQTogEmkzHG...@4ax.com...
>
> If the Iraqis were able to pump oil without their pipelines and facilities
> getting blown up, they could more than make up any potential lost production
> from Nigeria. Another point; Bush's release from the Strategic Petroleum
> Reserve in the wake of Ivan has not slowed energy prices from going upward.
Bush's release is a joke.
He released enough for one day of production.
--
"Ignorance is an evil weed, which dictators may cultivate among their
dupes, but which no democracy can afford among its citizens."
- William H. Beveridge, 1944
Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )
Don't you want the price of oil up so that people conserve it? Isn't
that what you complain about all the time?
--
--
"...and least of all would have believed that in time of deadly need men
could die at arm’s length of plenty, sooner than touch food they did not
know. In vain the interpreters interpreted; in vain his two policemen
showed in vigorous pantomime what should be done. The starving crept
away to their bark and weeds, grubs, leaves, and clay, and left the open
sacks untouched.", Rudyard Kipling, "William the Conquerer"
Steve Hiner
"Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )"
news:416C3086...@backpacker.com...
Run that piece of garbage rhetoric by an independent truck driver or
consumers that buy the products they haul!
Run that piece of garbage rhetoric by local communities that pay the higher
prices to operate their police cars or fire and rescue vehicles!
Run that piece of garbage rhetoric by local communities that survive on the
tourist trade! Rather than just a local community, how bout almost the
entire state of Florida!
etc...,etc...,etc...!
Are there any Rightards around here who are actually sane?
kim1
Want to change the subject again when you cannot face the facts?
kim1
>What's the subject?
>
>
>--
Go get a lobotomy, it might help....
Big Al
"Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )"
news:416B60D7...@backpacker.com...
Then tell us why did the Idiot in Chief open the SPR to help out some
refineries that had poor inventory management and ran out of oil? You mean
that hurricanes in the gulf in late summer aren't normally occuring acts of
nature. I suppose I should also be shocked when it snows in the Rockies this
winter too.
Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )
It might turn out that shipping so much via trucks is uneconomical.
Trains are about five times more energy efficient just counting their
interface to the surface, steel trucks and rails vs rubber tires and
asphalt/concrete.
> Run that piece of garbage rhetoric by local communities that pay the higher
> prices to operate their police cars or fire and rescue vehicles!
>
I don't know what the percentage of total police and fire costs comes
from their fuel use. They are going to have to find ways to make do,
however.
> Run that piece of garbage rhetoric by local communities that survive on the
> tourist trade! Rather than just a local community, how bout almost the
> entire state of Florida!
> etc...,etc...,etc...!
>
Even at three dollars a gallon, gasonline is priced less than it was in
the 70s when you consider inflation. When you consider how cars are
capable of using that gasoline efficiently, prices even up to what it
takes to make alternatives viable won't really break the bank for most
folks. I'm sure you'll get used to it.
> Are there any Rightards around here who are actually sane?
>
It isn't folks on the right who are complaining that we aren't switching
to alternative energy sources while simultaneously insisting that the
sorts of prices for energy that are needed to motivate those changes
must not happen. There is simply a manifold disconnect on the left
between their reality and their rhetoric.
--
"...and least of all would have believed that in time of deadly need men
could die at arm’s length of plenty, sooner than touch food they did not
know. In vain the interpreters interpreted; in vain his two policemen
showed in vigorous pantomime what should be done. The starving crept
away to their bark and weeds, grubs, leaves, and clay, and left the open
sacks untouched.", Rudyard Kipling, "William the Conqueror"
(!!)
Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )
I think you'll find the number this year was outside the previous twenty
year norm.
> I suppose I should also be shocked when it snows in the Rockies this
> winter too.
>
If shifting supplies around can help ease the supply situation, I doubt
that it will be resisted in an election year. My point was that the SRP
exists for specific reasons and should not be used up for other reasons.
I do not oppose a tactical energy buffer of some sort. Exactly how it
would operate should be discussed, if we want to implement it.
--
Big Al
For Florida yes, but they don't produce oil in Florida or offshore Florida.
Texas didn't get any hurricanes. If Ivan would have come ashore at Galveston
TX, instead of halfway between Mobile Al. and the FLA line you might have a
point.
>
>
>> I suppose I should also be shocked when it snows in the Rockies this
>> winter too.
>>
> If shifting supplies around can help ease the supply situation, I doubt
> that it will be resisted in an election year. My point was that the SRP
> exists for specific reasons and should not be used up for other reasons.
> I do not oppose a tactical energy buffer of some sort. Exactly how it
> would operate should be discussed, if we want to implement it.
>
Then why don't you bitch at Bush for releasing oil from the SPR after Ivan?
LeMod Pol
"Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest ''
)" wrote:
>
> Steve Hiner wrote:
> >
> > "Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )"
> > <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> > news:416C3086...@backpacker.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > GW *AWOL* Chimpzilla wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' ) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > kim1 wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:23:19 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle
> > >> >> of Epping Forest '' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > On 11 Oct 2004 06:37:05 -0700, taberna...@hotmail.com
> >> >> >> > (Tabernacle)wrote:
> > >> >> >> >Heck even you Rightards out there can understand that when a
> > >> >> >> >gallon of
> > >> >> >> >gas down the street from your house (or in the case of you
> > >> >> >> >Rightards
> > >> >> >> >your cave) climbs $.20 to $.30 in less than two weeks your Boi
> > >> >> >> >Bush is
> > >> >> >> >going to be in Deep Deep Shit!
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> $60 oil means about $1.50 per gallon of crude before refining,
> > >> >> >> transportation and taxes, so $3.00 is a reasonable estimate;
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >Really? See http://quotes.tradingcharts.com/futures/quotes/HU.html
Actually, prices are "regulated" by the speculators and
traders on the commodities exchanges. As of Tuesday the
prices are dropping.
Why? Because having pumped up the prices on a bit of
bad news, the speculators started cashing out their profits.
Oil prices slip back as supply fears ease
By Malcolm Moore, Economics Correspondent
London Telegraph (Filed: 13/10/2004)
The price of oil finally fell back yesterday, after
trading as high as $51.50 a barrel in London, as the
market decided that there would be enough oil for the winter.
"It is just a natural retracement from a very
over-bought situation; a move back down should not be a
big surprise," said Tony Machacek, a trader at
Prudential Bache. After rising for six days in a row,
the price of a barrel of Brent crude in London dropped
94 cents at the end of the day to $49.60 as traders
took profits.
Earlier in the day, the price rocketed after saboteurs
in Nigeria set fire to a major oil pipeline feeding the
Bonny export terminal, which exports 500,000 barrels of
oil a day.
But Shell, which operates the pipeline, said it was
diverting the flow to another pipeline, and that only
20,000 barrels of crude a day had been shut in.
Nigerian officials said that daily exports of around
2.5m barrels had so far not been troubled by striking
workers. Nigerian unions began a four-day strike on
Monday in protest at rising fuel prices, which have
been lifted 25% by President Olusegun Obasanjo. It is
the third fuel protest in 18 months.
ΐ ΐ ΐΐ ΐ ΐ
> It isn't folks on the right who are complaining that we aren't switching
> to alternative energy sources while simultaneously insisting that the
> sorts of prices for energy that are needed to motivate those changes
> must not happen. There is simply a manifold disconnect on the left
> between their reality and their rhetoric.
--
LP
"We are fighting today for security, for progress,
and for peace, not only for ourselves but for all
men, not only for one generation but for all
generations. We are fighting to cleanse the world
of ancient evils, ancient ills."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
State of the Union Address - 1942
LeMod Pol
kim1 wrote:
> Go get a lobotomy, it might help....
You should take your own advice ...
LeMod Pol
Big Al wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )"
> <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> news:416B60D7...@backpacker.com...
> > Now if we want to design a tactical energy response system where the
> > government and/or industry caches high grade crude and refined products
> > ready to instantly move to market as prices move, then we can do that.
> > If we do it, we should co-ordinate with the rest of the market so we can
> > work together. This means Europe, Japan, China, etc.
That would not work, assuming "we could co-ordinate
with the rest of the market so we can work together.
This means Europe, Japan, China, etc.", because the
market would break down.
Thom
Rationing is a far more fair and reasonable way to cut consumption.
THOM
Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )
LeMod Pol wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ("This is the Battle of Epping Forest")" wrote:
> > LeMod Pol wrote:
> > > Big Al wrote:
> > > > "Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )"
> > > > <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:416B60D7...@backpacker.com...
> > > > > Now if we want to design a tactical energy response system where the
> > > > > government and/or industry caches high grade crude and refined products
> > > > > ready to instantly move to market as prices move, then we can do that.
> > > > > If we do it, we should co-ordinate with the rest of the market so we can
> > > > > work together. This means Europe, Japan, China, etc.
> > >
> > > That would not work, assuming "we could co-ordinate
> > > with the rest of the market so we can work together.
> > > This means Europe, Japan, China, etc.", because the
> > > market would break down.
> > >
> > I'm suggesting a double buffering of oil and oil products such that
> > these buffers are selling into rising prices and buying from lowering
> > prices. The market should be told what will trigger these buys and
> > sells. We should not use our SPR for this though. That has a defined and
> > very important purpose already.
> >
> What you are suggesting is illegal.
>
Illegal? What I'm suggesting is properly designing something to do what
the SPR has been used to try to do for decades.
> there are two
> commodities exchanges - London & NY. Producers sell
> options on future production and spot quantities on
> these exchanges. Refiners/distributors protecting their
> future product costs and speculators buy and sell these
> options based on production estimates and stocks in storage.
>
You don't need to tell me about commodities exchanges.
> Manipulating the market in that way would simply
> destroy the market system. In effect you would be
> fixing the price of petroleum and its by products etc.
> Just like Jimmy Carter did for peanuts
>
No, you would be adding in yet another factor, this one explicitly
defined and stated to respond in opposition automatically to price
changes in the base crude oil price. Right now we have OPEC, which has a
defined band for a defined basket of its crudes that it claims to be
trying to modulate output to bring the price inside. I'm just saying we
could help push the prices too.
> I did some trading back (40 yrs) when imported crude
> was on a strict quota system and before the exchanges
> opened for crude oil. When the Alaska fields first
> opened, most of the production was shipped to Japan in
> a swap for Gulf crude shipped to Eastern & US Gulf
> points, so the US was getting "US" produced oil out of
> Arabian wells. <G>
>
> Before the OPEC embargo in 1972 all of the
> multinational producers brought out every mothballed
> tanker that had engines in running condition, loaded
> them in the Persian Gulf and kept them sailing around
> the oceans only making port when the price was deemed
> high enough. Nobody would talk about those floating
> "tank farms", but they were very profitable for a one
> voyage charter.
>
It's common to sail for one destination and be turned multiple times as
the product is bought and sold.
> I am reading Thomas Gold's "Deep Hot Biosphere" - fascinating
>
But is it fact?
--
john grove
Prince Bandar seems to be supporting Kerry, otherwise we'd be at about $1.50
for gas today.
JG
Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )
How utterly ignorate of the market and the oil industry are you?
--
"In August Rudyard's listlessness called for another series of major and
very unpleasant medical examinations.... He later joked ... 'If this is
what Oscar Wilde went to prison for, he ought to have got the Victoria
Cross.'", Andrew Lycett, "Rudyard Kipling"
Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )
Tempest wrote:
>
> john grove wrote:
> >>>>>>>>is
> >>>>>>>>coming from Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations which long ago
> >>>>>>>>nationalized their oil industries and sell to the market at market
> >>>>>>>>and/or contract pricing.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> > I pumped gas, Mini-Serve (not Full Serve) on July 4, 1979, $1.00 for regular,
> > minimum wage was $2.90. By your reasoning the wage should be $8.70 today.
>
> Or at least close to it.
>
> The minimum wage hasn't been raised in a decade, thanks to the GOP
> controlled Congress.
>
You are, of course, lying yet again. According to this website: [
http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/chart.htm ], which is from the federal
government, the last time the federal minimum wage was raised was in
1997. Of course states are allowed to set their own minimum wages and
those on the West Coast have been regularly raising their minimums. In
Washington state, it is tied to inflation.
Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )
john grove wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >is
> > > >> >> >coming from Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations which long ago
> > > >> >> >nationalized their oil industries and sell to the market at market
> > > >> >> >and/or contract pricing.
> > > >> >> >
> I pumped gas, Mini-Serve (not Full Serve) on July 4, 1979, $1.00 for regular,
> minimum wage was $2.90. By your reasoning the wage should be $8.70 today.
>
Since the minimum wage is like $7.15 an hour right now, at least around
here, that's fairly near your prediction.
Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )
john grove wrote:
>
> thoma...@yahoo.com.au (Thom) wrote in message > >> >> >"Bring it on!" wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> > It hasn't doubled in price during his administration.
> > >> It was $25.70 when AWOL Bush took office. Today it closed at $53.72. Did your
> > >> momma teach you to lie like that? Or is it your Rovian hypnosis? Wake up!!
> > >>
> > >Don't you want the price of oil up so that people conserve it? Isn't
> > >that what you complain about all the time?
> >
> > Rationing is a far more fair and reasonable way to cut consumption.
>
> 10 gallons per week at $1.50 sounds reasonable, then buy the rest at "market
> price"
>
What possible point would that have?
Steve Hiner
>
>
> Steve Hiner wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )"
>> <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> >
>> > Steve Hiner wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )"
>> >> <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
>> about it! Corporate America decided that trucking goods is more
>> efficient,
>> while passing the uneconomical costs off to the comsumer.
>>
> Trucking freight has many advantages since there are many more roads
> than rails. This tends to speed delivery up.
Well duh!!!
>> >> Do you do any other dance steps, your sidestep shuffle sucks!
>> >>
>> > I'm pretty sure I was directly explaining the situation to you. Are you
>> > saying that independent truckers have some call on the market for
>> > moving
>> > goods in this country that doesn't apply to anyone else who can better
>> > compete in a different energy cost scenario?
>>
>> You did? Oh sure you did! Throw all the truckers out of business
>> tomorrow
>> and let the railroads handle the freight, it's more economical that way.
>> I
>> guess we'd have no more UPS, Fed-X and the like either, right? It's
>> horse
>> and buggy times again folks!
>>
> You aren't rational, are you?
You'e not sane, are you?
>> Weren't you saying that the oil industry is raising the price of oil to
>> guide American's into conserving? That they are somehow trying to be the
>> saviors of America, if not humanity? If so, LOL!
>>
> The oil industry isn't raising the price of oil. The market is raising
> the price of oil.
Who's buying the oil then, local fish hatcheies? The oil industry is dummy!
>> And weren't you saying that the only and/or best way to get people to
>> conserve is to raise the price of a commodity so high that people have no
>> alternative but to conserve or do without? If so, have your doctor
>> change
>> your meds!
>>
> I don't have any meds. And I said that as long as alternative sources of
> energy are more expensive than oil, there is no reason why anyone would
> switch to them.
Who's anyone? Gee, why did the City of L.A. switch to fuel cell vehicles
then? I guess by your rhetoric they aren't anyone! Americans would switch
to fuel cell vehicles in a heartbeat if they and hydrogen were available.
But, the mental midget wants to do a 10 year study on a technology that is
already being put to practical use.
>> Truckers, being just one example, have little, if any, choice in the
>> matter.
>> They can only pay the increase costs or go out of business. They cannot
>> or
>> have little ability to conserve!
>>
> I mentioned earlier that it might turn out in a different energy cost
> scenario that long haul trucking can't compete with rail. I'm not sure
> why you want that to bother me.
So! My responses have been directed forwards this statement you made;
"Don't you want the price of oil up so that people conserve it? Isn't that
what you complain about all the time?"
To tell ya the truth, I really don't give a flying frypan if the trucking
industry is competetive with rail. That's old news! And I don't give a
damn what does or doesn't bothers you. What I do dive a damn about is your
bullshit rhetoric of how liberals and conservationists want higher oil
prices so that people to conserve it! Conserve it? Yes! With higher oil
prices? Please, that logic is insane!
>> They must get their cargo from point A to
>> point B as quickly and efficiently as they can. And after years of doing
>> this they know that one route is the quickest and most efficient way to
>> get
>> from point A to point B.
>>
>> Can transporting freight by rail be more economical? Absolutely, but, it
>> would take some tens years to shift those transportation needs over to
>> rail
>> service and you completely ignore the fact that the freight still has to
>> get
>> from the depot's to the retailer's. Here's a novel idea for ya! While
>>
> Your overuse of the exclamation point makes you seem like some sort of
> lunatic.
Go fuck yourself!
>> we're throwing the truckers out of business, let's do the same to the
>> middlemen, the distributors! Instead of shipping to them, let's ship
>> directly to the retailers.
>>
> That's more likely to happen with trucks since rail tends to be more hub
> oriented. UPS can go around everyone and ship directly to the enduser.
> Why should I have a problem with this?
>
>
>
>> You know the ones that actually or mostly
>> interface or sell with or to the consumer! The US could conserve a bunch
>> there, now wouldn't it?
>>
> I don't know what the market wants. I would let consumers decide what
> they are willing to pay for.
CONSUMERS DON'T HAVE A CHOICE ASSHOLE! That's been the point! People must
get back and forth to work! They must pay the higher prices or they don't
have a job! Truckers don't have a choice either, they are consumers!
Factories that products from petroeum don't have a choice, they have to
either pay the higher prices and pass the costs off to the rest of us or
shut their operations down. It's not like the sugar or coffee markets, if
those prices go up consumers can stop buying them and it doesn't effect
their livelihood like oil does.
Why is this so difficult for you rightards idiots to comprehend?
>> >> Where's the mental midget's increased funding for rail transport?
>> >>
>> > Why can't you let the market do its thing? Everything is a bloody
>> > government programme with you Libs.
>>
>> Ok! Then let's take back all of the taxpayer funded and/or backed
>> government welfare that has been handed out! Let's let the private
>> sector
>> survive or die on it's own!
>>
> It is "Its own". An apostrophe isn't used to show possessive "it".
Again, go fuck yourself!
>> I guess you haven't notice that the rail system
>> in America is in utter shambles, both in the inner cities and in rural
>> America. I also would guess that you do not know that the present rail
>> system transports approx. 40% of all freight shipped in this country.
>>
> The rail system can handle bulk freight well. It is having trouble with
> small quantities. The passenger rail system is also problematical. By
> doing as airlines do, and using the timeliness of passenger travel to
> also move freight, the rail industry could increase its share of high
> end time sensitive freight. Of course first we have to kill Amtrak.
So I guess you feel the railroads in this country are ok then, right?
Kill Amtrak? Why, I thought you said the rail system is more economical at
hauling freight?
>> When are you rightard blockheads gonna come to the realization that there
>> is
>> only one thing Corporate America is concerned about, the bottom line!
>> They
>> don't give a damn about people and their well being. This country works
>> best when there is a balance of government and private industry. Not
>> when
>> Corporate America dominates and controls every facet of peoples lives and
>> well being. If the Enron's of this country have taught us anything,
>> Corporate America is not concerned about the lives and well being of
>> people.
>>
>> >> Besides that, it still requires trucks to transport the goods from
>> >> almost
>> >> every rail depot!
>> >>
>> > Is there some point you are trying to make?
>>
>> I did, you just let it pass right over your pointy little head!
>>
>> >> >> Run that piece of garbage rhetoric by local communities that pay
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> higher
>> >> >> prices to operate their police cars or fire and rescue vehicles!
>> >> >>
>> >> > I don't know what the percentage of total police and fire costs
>> >> > comes
>> >> > from their fuel use. They are going to have to find ways to make do,
>> >> > however.
>> >>
>> >> Doesn't matter, they still have to respond to calls. Seems to me they
>> >> have
>> >> only two choices, pay the increased costs or set back and watch crime
>> >> increase. Not much of a choice for Joe Citizen!
>> >>
>> > They might try locking up the criminals for longer. Then they won't
>> > have
>> > to catch them so often.
>>
>> They might, but, as usual, you missed the point!
>>
> It's hard to take you seriously when you lack any sensible point. People
> aren't going to use alternative energy unless it is cheaper or at least
> even with oil based energy. And you also have to include the convenience
> of the energy source, its felt pollution, etc.
Horse hockey! Americans would switch to fuel cell vehicles in a heatbeat.
>> >> >> Run that piece of garbage rhetoric by local communities that
>> >> >> survive
>> >> >> on
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> tourist trade! Rather than just a local community, how bout almost
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> entire state of Florida!
>> >> >> etc...,etc...,etc...!
>> >> >>
>> >> > Even at three dollars a gallon, gasonline is priced less than it was
>> >> > in
>> >> > the 70s when you consider inflation. When you consider how cars are
>> >> > capable of using that gasoline efficiently, prices even up to what
>> >> > it
>> >> > takes to make alternatives viable won't really break the bank for
>> >> > most
>> >> > folks. I'm sure you'll get used to it.
>> >>
>> >> The question is, will this country and the economy get used to it? I
>> >> guess
>> >> we'll see, now won't we?
>> >>
>> > It seems like a safe bet that people won't stop driving 12 mpg SUVs as
>> > long as petrol is $1.24 a gallon, all your crying about it not
>> > withstanding.
>>
>> I would guess they don't let you out much. As of 10/14/04, according to
>> AAA, the national average price of self serve regular is $1.989/gal.
>> That's
>> up $.43 from just one year ago. Even at this price it doesn't seem
>> likely
>> that some people won't stop driving those SUV's, at least not in the
>> short
>> term anyway.
>>
> Because that price in real terms isn't even high.
You have no concept of what is real and what isn't! The average pay raises
for workers in the median wage bracket has been in the 3-5% range for at
least the past 5-7 years. The average earnings for C.E.O.'s, this past
year, was 22%. Gas prices have increased 21.6% compared to the same time
period last year. Your bullshit excusing of these increases doesn't match
the reality of people's everyday life!
>> http://198.6.95.31/index.asp
>>
>> >> >> Are there any Rightards around here who are actually sane?
>> >> >>
>> >> > It isn't folks on the right who are complaining that we aren't
>> >> > switching
>> >> > to alternative energy sources while simultaneously insisting that
>> >> > the
>> >> > sorts of prices for energy that are needed to motivate those changes
>> >> > must not happen. There is simply a manifold disconnect on the left
>> >> > between their reality and their rhetoric.
>> >>
>> >> No, the right is simply whining that the country needs to be less
>> >> dependent
>> >> on foreign oil and that the U.S. has an abundant supply that will last
>> >> 100's
>> >> of more years. And please don't insult yourself by claiming that the
>> >> solution is in the mental midget's energy policy. It isn't and it
>> >> won't!
>> >>
>> > If you mean Bush's energy policy, it is to increase domestic supplies
>> > and branch out into alternatives such as the use of hydrogen. What's
>> > the
>> > problem with that?
>>
>> Nothing, if that's in fact what the policy would be doing. Increasing
>> domestic supplies from where, Alaska? Those supplies up there would only
>> amount to 5-7% of the nations total annual consumption and would last
>> less
>> than 14 years, at the current rate of consumption.
>>
> We don't know how much oil and natural gas is in Alaska. Without
> allowing drilling, it is difficult to define reserves as proven.
> Wherever we get new resources, if they are going to be domestic, they
> are going to have to come from the US and including Seward's Folly in
> the mix makes sense.
What a bunch of whale dung! I guess the next thing you're gonna tell us is
that the U.S.G.S. are all a bunch of quacks.
Now isn't that a statement for the funny papers. Doesn't the term domestic
refer to and/or mean inside the U.S.?
>> Off-shore drilling? I
>> guess you've never been to Houston lately, have you? The industry has
>> not
>> proven that they can operate without polluting the land, air and water.
>>
> So your argument is to export the pollution by having the industry move
> to another country? Won't that just be exporting high paying American
> jobs too?
Check your meds again, you may have taken the wrong ones!
>> Besides this, the costs of off-shore drilling keep rising by the minute!
>> So
>> where does it bring the price of oil down? And nowhere in any of the
>> mental
>> midget's and Slick Dick's rhetoric have they stated that enacting this
>> energy policy oil prices would come down.
>>
> You seem so irrational. I've tried to explain that alternatives cost
> more than we are paying even now therefore they won't be used if the
> price goes back down. You don't listen.
No, you've tried to interject your opinion. You're the one not listening!
>> All they've stated is that it
>> would help make the U.S. less dependent! The bottom line is the U.S. has
>> little oil supplies left and by drilling it out now would make the U.S.
>> almost "entirely dependent" on foreign supplies in 15 years or less. And
>> in
>> doing so, would threaten the nations long term security. I don't think
>> jet
>> fighters can run on fuel cells, at least not from all I've read anyway!
>>
> Did anyone claim they could run on fuel cells? They can run fuels that
> can be burned in turbines. Those fuels don't have to come from crude
> oil.
Such as?
>> Branch out into alternatives? I guess you don't realize that the almost
>> the
>> entire City government of L.A. is already running their vehicles on
>> hydrogen
>> fuel cells!
>>
> The source of hydrogen is natural gas. This just shifts the pollution to
> wherever the hydrogen is extracted and still uses our depleted fossil
> fuel resources.
Now I know your an idiot and rightard bullshit artist!
Hydrogen wouldn't be extracted from the ground, dipstick! Here's a clue for
ya moron, 70% of the planet is made up of it!
>> I guess you also don't realize the number of facilities, both
>> government and private sector, are already running on some form of
>> hydrogen
>> fuel cell technology. And many of them are military facilities, from Air
>> Force to Coast Guard. So why a 10 year study and to study what? The
>> studies are already out there and are in practical application now, not
>> 10
>> years from now!
>>
> The first issue is where are you going to get the hydrogen from? The
> military has use for hydrogen fuel cell technology because they can
> create the hydrogen to store the extra energy when they are running
> their whatever-electric vehicles.
I gave you one clue already. Here's another; What does H2O represent?
The rest of your statement is utter bullshit. You haven't a clue what
you're babbling about!
The military hasn't gotten hydrogen thru ground extraction in more than 40
years. They've been getting it from a seperation process using water (H2O
dummy)!
>> The bottom line is, the mental midget's energy policy amounts to nothing
>> less than a big corporate welfare check. A taxpayer handout to all of
>> his
>> and Slick Dick's buddies!
>>
> You have convinced me you are a kook.
And that's suppose to insult me?
You sir are a rightwing scam and bullshit artist and you haven't a clue of
what you spew!
Thom
Conservitives didn't pay attention in garmmer school math classes.
More math and less bible would have helped.
THOM
Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )
The winds disrupted production. For example, even if you don't get a
direct hit, if you might, you still have to batten down.
> >
> >
> >> I suppose I should also be shocked when it snows in the Rockies this
> >> winter too.
> >>
> > If shifting supplies around can help ease the supply situation, I doubt
> > that it will be resisted in an election year. My point was that the SRP
> > exists for specific reasons and should not be used up for other reasons.
> > I do not oppose a tactical energy buffer of some sort. Exactly how it
> > would operate should be discussed, if we want to implement it.
> >
>
> Then why don't you bitch at Bush for releasing oil from the SPR after Ivan?
>
I don't have a pipeline into Bush's ear. I've explained my opinion on
this subject numerous times.
john grove
> >
> to catch them so often.
Guess what? that costs MONEY, as in TAXES.
> > > It isn't folks on the right who are complaining that we aren't switching
> > > to alternative energy sources while simultaneously insisting that the
> > > sorts of prices for energy that are needed to motivate those changes
> > > must not happen. There is simply a manifold disconnect on the left
> > > between their reality and their rhetoric.
> >
> > No, the right is simply whining that the country needs to be less dependent
> > on foreign oil and that the U.S. has an abundant supply that will last 100's
> > of more years. And please don't insult yourself by claiming that the
> > solution is in the mental midget's energy policy. It isn't and it won't!
> >
> If you mean Bush's energy policy, it is to increase domestic supplies
> and branch out into alternatives such as the use of hydrogen. What's the
> problem with that?
>
Georgie conviently prohibited drilling in the GOM off Florida, maybe because
the rest of the gulf is considered a marine life dead zone.
JG
>
>
> --
Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )
Rationing goes outside the market model. Didn't we see how well that
works by watching the Soviet Union for sixty years?
--
Thom
>It hasn't doubled in price during his administration. Trying to operate
>in the long term interest of the US might carry a short term cost
>premium. Even you could probably understand that.
Then getting us off the oil tit is whats needed then. Public
transport, alternate fuels etc etc.
>
>
>
>> Who stands to gain the
>> most from this-the average American? Don't try to tell me there are
>> other factors for the increase. I realize that. The fact is, the
>> administration controls those factors too.
>>
>Are there any Liberals left around here who are actually sane?
Are there any war mongering right that are actually honest?
THOM
>
>
>--
>"...and least of all would have believed that in time of deadly need men
>could die at arm’s length of plenty, sooner than touch food they did not
>know. In vain the interpreters interpreted; in vain his two policemen
>showed in vigorous pantomime what should be done. The starving crept
>away to their bark and weeds, grubs, leaves, and clay, and left the open
>sacks untouched.", Rudyard Kipling, "William the Conqueror"
Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )
You don't seem to be listening. As long as alternatives cost more than
buying crude oil and refining that, who in their right mind is going to
buy the alternatives? Short of coercion, which you advocate I see from
your other posts, there isn't any other way.
> >> Who stands to gain the
> >> most from this-the average American? Don't try to tell me there are
> >> other factors for the increase. I realize that. The fact is, the
> >> administration controls those factors too.
> >>
> >Are there any Liberals left around here who are actually sane?
>
> Are there any war mongering right that are actually honest?
>
I don't know what you are referring to. The right isn't 'war mongering'.
Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )
> I suggest you not try to run that past the SEC.
>
The government is trying to use the SPR for exactly what I'm talking
about, although because of its design, it is effective.
> > > there are two
> > > commodities exchanges - London & NY. Producers sell
> > > options on future production and spot quantities on
> > > these exchanges. Refiners/distributors protecting their
> > > future product costs and speculators buy and sell these
> > > options based on production estimates and stocks in storage.
> > >
> > You don't need to tell me about commodities exchanges.
>
> Then you should know better
>
Know better?
> > > Manipulating the market in that way would simply
> > > destroy the market system. In effect you would be
> > > fixing the price of petroleum and its by products etc.
> > > Just like Jimmy Carter did for peanuts
> > >
> > No, you would be adding in yet another factor, this one explicitly
> > defined and stated to respond in opposition automatically to price
> > changes in the base crude oil price. Right now we have OPEC, which has a
> > defined band for a defined basket of its crudes that it claims to be
> > trying to modulate output to bring the price inside. I'm just saying we
> > could help push the prices too.
>
> That is what is illegal
>
What is illegal? OPEC is illegal? The SPR is illegal? Buying into a
falling market and selling into a rising one?
> > > I did some trading back (40 yrs) when imported crude
> > > was on a strict quota system and before the exchanges
> > > opened for crude oil. When the Alaska fields first
> > > opened, most of the production was shipped to Japan in
> > > a swap for Gulf crude shipped to Eastern & US Gulf
> > > points, so the US was getting "US" produced oil out of
> > > Arabian wells. <G>
> > >
> > > Before the OPEC embargo in 1972 all of the
> > > multinational producers brought out every mothballed
> > > tanker that had engines in running condition, loaded
> > > them in the Persian Gulf and kept them sailing around
> > > the oceans only making port when the price was deemed
> > > high enough. Nobody would talk about those floating
> > > "tank farms", but they were very profitable for a one
> > > voyage charter.
> > >
> > It's common to sail for one destination and be turned multiple times as
> > the product is bought and sold.
>
> Not on that scale and not as common as you think.
> These guys were "out there" for months.
>
> > > I am reading Thomas Gold's "Deep Hot Biosphere" - fascinating
> > >
> > But is it fact?
>
> He appears very credible and the stuff he talks about
> has all been certified.
>
This is the guy who says that oil really comes from even deeper sources
of something, right?
> Then - less than 5 years ago my regular "oil letter"
> reported serious depletion in Sa'udi fields and
> difficulty with water extraction. Today the are talking
> as much as 100 years' reserves. From where is that
> "new" oil coming?
>
What were their claimed reserves then? Publications want a story so they
hype whatever the story is. It's like putting scantily clad broads on
the front cover of magazines in the supermarket.
Sanders Kaufman
news:ab67fbc2.04101...@posting.google.com...
> "Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )" > > >> >> >> >>
> wrote:
>> >
>> They might try locking up the criminals for longer. Then they won't have
>> to catch them so often.
>
> Guess what? that costs MONEY, as in TAXES.
Not as much as letting them run loose.
Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )
john grove wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )" > > >> >> >> >> wrote:
> > >
> > They might try locking up the criminals for longer. Then they won't have
> > to catch them so often.
>
> Guess what? that costs MONEY, as in TAXES.
>
You might save money on the number of cops and gallons of gas you need
to spend on them chasing criminals around.
> > > > It isn't folks on the right who are complaining that we aren't switching
> > > > to alternative energy sources while simultaneously insisting that the
> > > > sorts of prices for energy that are needed to motivate those changes
> > > > must not happen. There is simply a manifold disconnect on the left
> > > > between their reality and their rhetoric.
> > >
> > > No, the right is simply whining that the country needs to be less dependent
> > > on foreign oil and that the U.S. has an abundant supply that will last 100's
> > > of more years. And please don't insult yourself by claiming that the
> > > solution is in the mental midget's energy policy. It isn't and it won't!
> > >
> > If you mean Bush's energy policy, it is to increase domestic supplies
> > and branch out into alternatives such as the use of hydrogen. What's the
> > problem with that?
> >
>
> Georgie conviently prohibited drilling in the GOM off Florida, maybe because
> the rest of the gulf is considered a marine life dead zone.
>
The dead zone is around the Mississippi river because of oxygen
depletion. It isn't because of the oil industry.
john grove
> GW *AWOL* Chimpzilla wrote:
> >
> > Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' ) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > momma teach you to lie like that? Or is it your Rovian hypnosis? Wake up!!
> >
> Don't you want the price of oil up so that people conserve it? Isn't
> that what you complain about all the time?
Rather see the profits or "tax" stay in the USA, not to British BP or
building palaces for Prince Bandar.
JG
>
>
> --
Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )
Steve Hiner wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )"
>
> >> Weren't you saying that the oil industry is raising the price of oil to
> >> guide American's into conserving? That they are somehow trying to be the
> >> saviors of America, if not humanity? If so, LOL!
> >>
> > The oil industry isn't raising the price of oil. The market is raising
> > the price of oil.
>
> Who's buying the oil then, local fish hatcheies? The oil industry is dummy!
>
I think there is a disconnect between what you think and what is.
> >> And weren't you saying that the only and/or best way to get people to
> >> conserve is to raise the price of a commodity so high that people have no
> >> alternative but to conserve or do without? If so, have your doctor
> >> change
> >> your meds!
> >>
> > I don't have any meds. And I said that as long as alternative sources of
> > energy are more expensive than oil, there is no reason why anyone would
> > switch to them.
>
> Who's anyone? Gee, why did the City of L.A. switch to fuel cell vehicles
> then? I guess by your rhetoric they aren't anyone!
>
A demonstration project in some city isn't proof that hydrogen is
competitive in the free market. I keep trying to explain this to you.
> Americans would switch
> to fuel cell vehicles in a heartbeat if they and hydrogen were available.
>
Even if the price is higher than using the gasoline that they know? I
doubt it.
> But, the mental midget wants to do a 10 year study on a technology that is
> already being put to practical use.
>
Where is the hydrogen coming from? Are you ready to support nuclear
power to get the hydrogen?
> >> Truckers, being just one example, have little, if any, choice in the
> >> matter.
> >> They can only pay the increase costs or go out of business. They cannot
> >> or
> >> have little ability to conserve!
> >>
> > I mentioned earlier that it might turn out in a different energy cost
> > scenario that long haul trucking can't compete with rail. I'm not sure
> > why you want that to bother me.
>
> So! My responses have been directed forwards this statement you made;
>
> "Don't you want the price of oil up so that people conserve it? Isn't that
> what you complain about all the time?"
>
It's too bad you can't come with an actual sensible answer to that
question.
> To tell ya the truth, I really don't give a flying frypan if the trucking
> industry is competetive with rail. That's old news! And I don't give a
> damn what does or doesn't bothers you. What I do dive a damn about is your
> bullshit rhetoric of how liberals and conservationists want higher oil
> prices so that people to conserve it! Conserve it? Yes! With higher oil
> prices? Please, that logic is insane!
>
Why would people switch to more expensive fuels? You haven't explained
your 'logic' on that. I admit I don't expect much.
> > Your overuse of the exclamation point makes you seem like some sort of
> > lunatic.
>
> Go fuck yourself!
>
And you didn't surprise me.
> > I don't know what the market wants. I would let consumers decide what
> > they are willing to pay for.
>
> CONSUMERS DON'T HAVE A CHOICE ASSHOLE! That's been the point! People must
> get back and forth to work! They must pay the higher prices or they don't
> have a job! Truckers don't have a choice either, they are consumers!
> Factories that products from petroeum don't have a choice, they have to
> either pay the higher prices and pass the costs off to the rest of us or
> shut their operations down. It's not like the sugar or coffee markets, if
> those prices go up consumers can stop buying them and it doesn't effect
> their livelihood like oil does.
>
> Why is this so difficult for you rightards idiots to comprehend?
>
The price of oil has to be higher than it has been for it to make
logical sense to switch to alternatives, all of which are more
expensive. If you are complaining about the current price of oil being
too high, how can you deal with the threat of having to use more
expensive alternatives?
> > The rail system can handle bulk freight well. It is having trouble with
> > small quantities. The passenger rail system is also problematical. By
> > doing as airlines do, and using the timeliness of passenger travel to
> > also move freight, the rail industry could increase its share of high
> > end time sensitive freight. Of course first we have to kill Amtrak.
>
> So I guess you feel the railroads in this country are ok then, right?
>
> Kill Amtrak? Why, I thought you said the rail system is more economical at
> hauling freight?
>
If we can get rid of Amtrak, private industry can start to move people
on trains and combine that with freight. It is this timeliness factor,
needed for moving people, that really helps with getting freight
business. Last time I checked, Amtrak refused to ship the sorts of goods
that get high shipping rates, the items that UPS and Fed Ex deal with
every single day.
> > It's hard to take you seriously when you lack any sensible point. People
> > aren't going to use alternative energy unless it is cheaper or at least
> > even with oil based energy. And you also have to include the convenience
> > of the energy source, its felt pollution, etc.
>
> Horse hockey! Americans would switch to fuel cell vehicles in a heatbeat.
>
Even if the fuel cost more than gasoline and the vehicle cost more than
one that uses gasoline? Why would they do this?
> > We don't know how much oil and natural gas is in Alaska. Without
> > allowing drilling, it is difficult to define reserves as proven.
> > Wherever we get new resources, if they are going to be domestic, they
> > are going to have to come from the US and including Seward's Folly in
> > the mix makes sense.
>
> What a bunch of whale dung! I guess the next thing you're gonna tell us is
> that the U.S.G.S. are all a bunch of quacks.
>
They can't even tell me what is going to happen with Mt St Helens
tomorrow, how can they tell me exactly how much oil is in the ground in
Alaska?
> > So your argument is to export the pollution by having the industry move
> > to another country? Won't that just be exporting high paying American
> > jobs too?
>
> Check your meds again, you may have taken the wrong ones!
>
You just don't have any response to the valid points I'm making.
> > You seem so irrational. I've tried to explain that alternatives cost
> > more than we are paying even now therefore they won't be used if the
> > price goes back down. You don't listen.
>
> No, you've tried to interject your opinion. You're the one not listening!
>
Listening to you? I'm replying to whatever it is you are posting point
by point.
> >> All they've stated is that it
> >> would help make the U.S. less dependent! The bottom line is the U.S. has
> >> little oil supplies left and by drilling it out now would make the U.S.
> >> almost "entirely dependent" on foreign supplies in 15 years or less. And
> >> in
> >> doing so, would threaten the nations long term security. I don't think
> >> jet
> >> fighters can run on fuel cells, at least not from all I've read anyway!
> >>
> > Did anyone claim they could run on fuel cells? They can run fuels that
> > can be burned in turbines. Those fuels don't have to come from crude
> > oil.
>
> Such as?
>
A turbine can run on many fuels. The main issue is that they be clean.
> >> Branch out into alternatives? I guess you don't realize that the almost
> >> the
> >> entire City government of L.A. is already running their vehicles on
> >> hydrogen
> >> fuel cells!
> >>
> > The source of hydrogen is natural gas. This just shifts the pollution to
> > wherever the hydrogen is extracted and still uses our depleted fossil
> > fuel resources.
>
> Now I know your an idiot and rightard bullshit artist!
>
I'd hate to inform you about this, but I do know what I'm talking about.
> Hydrogen wouldn't be extracted from the ground, dipstick! Here's a clue for
> ya moron, 70% of the planet is made up of it!
>
Water is the ash of the exothermic reaction of hydrogen and oxygen. In
order to free the hydrogen for use in your car, you have to input
energy, more energy than you will get out when using it in your car. I
want to know where that energy is going to come from. You refuse to
answer, and this is largely because you don't have any answer.
> >> I guess you also don't realize the number of facilities, both
> >> government and private sector, are already running on some form of
> >> hydrogen
> >> fuel cell technology. And many of them are military facilities, from Air
> >> Force to Coast Guard. So why a 10 year study and to study what? The
> >> studies are already out there and are in practical application now, not
> >> 10
> >> years from now!
> >>
> > The first issue is where are you going to get the hydrogen from? The
> > military has use for hydrogen fuel cell technology because they can
> > create the hydrogen to store the extra energy when they are running
> > their whatever-electric vehicles.
>
> I gave you one clue already. Here's another; What does H2O represent?
>
It's a common claim from ignoramuses on the internet like you that "H2O"
is the solution to where to get the hydrogen even though they never seem
to know that you have to pay an energy price to get that hydrogen out of
the water.
> The rest of your statement is utter bullshit. You haven't a clue what
> you're babbling about!
>
> The military hasn't gotten hydrogen thru ground extraction in more than 40
> years. They've been getting it from a seperation process using water (H2O
> dummy)!
>
I didn't know that the military operated its own oil and natural gas
wells. That is news to me. Can you tell readers where they get the
energy to do this extraction?
> >> The bottom line is, the mental midget's energy policy amounts to nothing
> >> less than a big corporate welfare check. A taxpayer handout to all of
> >> his
> >> and Slick Dick's buddies!
> >>
> > You have convinced me you are a kook.
>
> And that's suppose to insult me?
>
It wasn't an insult, just an observation.
jjp
>
(snip)
> than 14 years, at the current rate of consumption. Off-shore drilling? I
> proven that they can operate without polluting the land, air and water.
Houston's air pollution problem was with ground-level ozone ONLY.
According to the EPA, there are SIX components or kinds of air
pollution, ozone being just ONE of them.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:hMu2WJNsGqAJ:www.cse.org/reports/ia109_texas_environment.pdf+epa+%22most+polluted+states%22&hl=en
"According to EPA, Los Angeles' air still is ranked in a poorer
category than the air in Houston. While Houston violates the federal
standard for ozone, Los Angeles violates the standards for ozone,
carbon monoxide, and particulate matter."
http://www.dallasnews.com/texas_southwest/STORY.e9eb444f2b.b0.af.0.a4.cccba.
html
"In some ways, calling Houston America's smoggiest city misrepresented
the relative quality of air in the two cities. Los Angeles' air is
worse than Houston's in other categories."
More recent info on ozone violations:
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=50752
Metropolitan Areas with the Worst Ozone Air Pollution
1 LOS ANGELES-RIVERSIDE-ORANGE COUNTY, CA
2 FRESNO, CA
3 BAKERSFIELD, CA
4 VISALIA- -PORTERVILLE, CA
5 HOUSTON-BAYTOWN-HUNTSVILLE, TX CMSA
6 MERCED, CA
7 SACRAMENTO-ARDEN-ARCADE--TRUCKEE, CA-NV
8 HANFORD-CORCORAN, CA
9 KNOXVILLE-SEVIERVILLE-LA FOLLETTE, TN
10 DALLAS-FORT WORTH, TX CMSA
And overall air quality:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2056693
Number of days in 2000-2002 when air quality was unhealthy
1. Riverside-San Bernardino, Ca. 445 days
2. Fresno, Ca. 421
3. Bakersfield, Ca. 409
4. Los Angeles-Long Beach, Ca. 255
5. Sacramento, Ca. 163
6. Pittsburgh, Penn. 134
7. Knoxville, Tenn. 109
8. Birmingham, Al. 100
9. Houston, Tx. 94
10. Baltimore, Md. 93
And particle pollution:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/05/01/smoggy.skies.ap/index.html
".... 1999-2001 EPA data, do not take into account a pollutant that's
considered more dangerous than smog -- tiny particles of soot
that can lodge deep in the lungs and cause heart problems and even
death."
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=50752
Metropolitan Areas Most Polluted by Year-Round Particle Pollution
1 LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH-RIVERSIDE, CA
2 VISALIA-PORTERVILLE, CA
3 BAKERSFIELD, CA
4 FRESNO-MADERA, CA
5 PITTSBURGH-NEW CASTLE, PA
6 DETROIT-WARREN-FLINT, MI
7 ATLANTA-SANDY SPRINGS-GAINESVILLE, GA
8 CLEVELAND-AKRON-ELYRIA, OH
9 HANFORD-CORCORAN, CA
10 BIRMINGHAM-HOOVER-CULLMAN, AL
(Houston is not on the list of 26 cities)
I'm not saying industry doesn't cause significant pollution -- because
it does. I'm just saying there are lots of other places worse off than
Houston.
Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )
Steve Hiner wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )"
> <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> news:416F4923...@backpacker.com...
> >
> >
> > Steve Hiner wrote:
> >>
> >> "Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )"
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >> >> Weren't you saying that the oil industry is raising the price of oil
> >> >> to
> >> >> guide American's into conserving? That they are somehow trying to be
> >> >> the
> >> >> saviors of America, if not humanity? If so, LOL!
> >> >>
> >> > The oil industry isn't raising the price of oil. The market is raising
> >> > the price of oil.
> >>
> >> Who's buying the oil then, local fish hatcheies? The oil industry is
> >> dummy!
> >>
> > I think there is a disconnect between what you think and what is.
>
> The only one disconnected here is you, dufus! You're so full of shit on
> this point.
>
Feel free to explain what my error supposedly is. Do that right here
----->
> When coffee companies like Folger's buys coffee futures on the commodities
> market, they have representatives (buyers), whom are either directly
> employed by the different oil companies or are hired as rep's through third
> party means, in the pit at the market(s). The rep's buy and/or sell
> quantity(s) for their respective oil companies. The oil companies set the
> prices through their rep's in the pit. Same occurs for orange juice, sugar,
> gold and yes, even oil! When the oil companies bid on the oil it's done in
> lots (lots are in barrels of oil for this particular commodity, orange juice
> is in gallons, gold in ounces, etc...). So when oil companies like Exxon or
> Shell purchase oil to be refined into gasoline, they purchase the barrels
> through the market(s) and direct these barrels, at whatever price they
> purchase them for, to the refineries. Then the oil is processed and then
> ultimately shipped to your local gas stations. They add in their markup and
> that's the price we all pay for the gas. The market(s) themselves are
> independent of the oil companies, but, it's the rep's on the floor, those
> that are actually setting the price of oil, are not independent, they are
> the oil industry. It's very much like an auction house for cattle and the
> like. The auction house provides the building and the people to run the
> auction, it's still the cattle industry that controls the price for the
> cattle, whether be in lots or in a single cow or pig.
>
If the oil industry could set the price, then the price wouldn't be down
at ten dollars a barrel some years back and certainly wouldn't bounce
around like it does. The futures markets exist to offload and speculate
on risk. I'm not going to explain futures contracts and options on
futures contracts to you here. In any case, I assure you that the market
in oil isn't limited to oil industry representatives, whatever that even
means.
> I've taken the time to describe the process, not for your benefit. You
> already know this to be true. This was for the benefit of others that may
> be reading this, those that may not know the truth of who is really in
> control of the price of oil. Your deception in this area is just another,
> in a long line of rightard deceptions.
>
The market decides what the price of oil is. OPEC can't even keep their
standard oil basket within their declared band. That should say
something when the biggest exporter in the world with the lowest cost to
produce or nearly so can't control the situation.
> The rest of your response isn't worth my time to respond to. Your constant
> side-step dancing and slight of hand tricks are getting old and repetitive.
>
Don't you think that you are side stepping by not responding to my
comments, comments which were directly addressing each of your claims
point by point by point.
Alfred Einstead
> Heck even you Rightards out there can understand that when a gallon of
> gas down the street from your house (or in the case of you Rightards
> your cave) climbs $.20 to $.30 in less than two weeks your Boi Bush is
> going to be in Deep Deep Shit!
You mean: you clueless Demopublican left-rightarded handedist
conservi-liberals.
From news://soc.men; October 5, 2004
Subject: Re: Female pedophelia is now being rewarded.
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The Babaloughesian writes:
> > Not unless the kid was prepubescent.
> Unfortunately, the law, and much of the uninformed public, treats anyone
> who engages in sexual activity with a minor as a "pedophile." Confusion
> is very widespread.
It's a designation we've coerced the US government to get its states
to abide by, in order to pave the way toward importing theocracy
into the US under the guise of both religious fundamentalism
and the zeal traditionally associated with mothers looking out for
their own children. You godless secularists have corrupted the world
for too long, while squandering away its precious unrenewable resources
and it's time to yank the leash to show you who's boss. Hence, the
drastic rollback of Saudi petrol export to the US last month and the
diversion of the market to the Chinese, where its recipients are
more appreciative, less spoiled ... and less fat. Try propping up
your car-addicted, oil-addicted suburban sprawl on the fat you eat,
instead, while you watch the price of crude continue to crash through
the ceiling to all-time highs.
===========
What handedist left-rightard conserviliberals do when not put on a
leash:
From news://talk.politics.misc
The Lies Of SO Damocles Exposed -- The Reign Of Handedist Terrorism
In Colombia
MYTH:
> 1960S - PRESENT
> AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR COLOMBIAN STATE TERRORISM OF THE COLOMBIAN PEOPLE
FACT:
Freedom House 2003 Country Report, Colombia
OVERVIEW:
Modern Colombia has been marked by the corrupt machine politics of the...
*** ...Liberals and Conservatives,... *** <-- You people
...whose leadership has largely been drawn from the traditional
elite;...
*** ...left-wing guerrilla insurgencies;... <-- You people
*** ...right-wing paramilitary violence;... <-- You people
...the emergence of vicious drug cartels; and gross human
rights violations committed by all sides.
Remainder of report at
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/colombia.htm
Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )
Steve Hiner wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )"
> <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> news:416F4923...@backpacker.com...
> >
> >
> > Steve Hiner wrote:
> >>
> >> "Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )"
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >> >> Weren't you saying that the oil industry is raising the price of oil
> >> >> to
> >> >> guide American's into conserving? That they are somehow trying to be
> >> >> the
> >> >> saviors of America, if not humanity? If so, LOL!
> >> >>
> >> > The oil industry isn't raising the price of oil. The market is raising
> >> > the price of oil.
> >>
> >> Who's buying the oil then, local fish hatcheies? The oil industry is
> >> dummy!
> >>
> > I think there is a disconnect between what you think and what is.
>
> >> >> And weren't you saying that the only and/or best way to get people to
john grove
> john grove wrote:
> >
> > thoma...@yahoo.com.au (Thom) wrote in message > >> >> >"Bring it on!" wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > It hasn't doubled in price during his administration.
> > > >> It was $25.70 when AWOL Bush took office. Today it closed at $53.72. Did your
> > > >> momma teach you to lie like that? Or is it your Rovian hypnosis? Wake up!!
> > > >>
> > > >Don't you want the price of oil up so that people conserve it? Isn't
> > > >that what you complain about all the time?
> > >
> > > Rationing is a far more fair and reasonable way to cut consumption.
> >
> > 10 gallons per week at $1.50 sounds reasonable, then buy the rest at "market
> > price"
> >
> What possible point would that have?
This would cover most people's commute to work at a reasonable price. Joyriders
would pay "market price". Gas was rationed during world war II, you know a
real war.
JG
Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )
Who would pay for the difference? Are you going to add taxes to the rest
of the fuel sold to make up for this? And who needs just ten gallons a
week? How about the people who live in the West and need more because
they have to drive greater distances?
> Gas was rationed during world war II, you know a
> real war.
>
Do you want a "real war"? The market does a much better job of
allocating resources than rationing.
john grove
> john grove wrote:
> >
> > "Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message news:<416F013F...@backpacker.com>...
> > > john grove wrote:
> > > >
> > > > thoma...@yahoo.com.au (Thom) wrote in message > >> >> >"Bring it on!" wrote:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > It hasn't doubled in price during his administration.
> > > > > >> It was $25.70 when AWOL Bush took office. Today it closed at $53.72. Did your
> > > > > >> momma teach you to lie like that? Or is it your Rovian hypnosis? Wake up!!
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >Don't you want the price of oil up so that people conserve it? Isn't
> > > > > >that what you complain about all the time?
> > > > >
> > > > > Rationing is a far more fair and reasonable way to cut consumption.
> > > >
> > > > 10 gallons per week at $1.50 sounds reasonable, then buy the rest at "market
> > > > price"
> > > >
> > > What possible point would that have?
> >
> > This would cover most people's commute to work at a reasonable price. Joyriders
> > would pay "market price".
> >
> Who would pay for the difference? Are you going to add taxes to the rest
> of the fuel sold to make up for this? And who needs just ten gallons a
> week? How about the people who live in the West and need more because
> they have to drive greater distances?
They choose to live greater distances from work. Ten gal. per week with a
20 mpg car takes care of a 40 mile round trip to work, enough for most people.
A hybrid will support an 80 mile commute, hummer-20 miles.
>
>
> > Gas was rationed during world war II, you know a
> > real war.
> >
> Do you want a "real war"? The market does a much better job of
> allocating resources than rationing.
The "market" is currently over-run with speculators and hedge funds. The
President claims we're in "war time", well gas was rationed during WW II,
and you could find more on the black market if needed.
JG
Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )
john grove wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message news:<4172E14B...@backpacker.com>...
> > john grove wrote:
> > >
> > > "Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message news:<416F013F...@backpacker.com>...
> > > > john grove wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > thoma...@yahoo.com.au (Thom) wrote in message > >> >> >"Bring it on!" wrote:
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > It hasn't doubled in price during his administration.
> > > > > > >> It was $25.70 when AWOL Bush took office. Today it closed at $53.72. Did your
> > > > > > >> momma teach you to lie like that? Or is it your Rovian hypnosis? Wake up!!
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >Don't you want the price of oil up so that people conserve it? Isn't
> > > > > > >that what you complain about all the time?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rationing is a far more fair and reasonable way to cut consumption.
> > > > >
> > > > > 10 gallons per week at $1.50 sounds reasonable, then buy the rest at "market
> > > > > price"
> > > > >
> > > > What possible point would that have?
> > >
> > > This would cover most people's commute to work at a reasonable price. Joyriders
> > > would pay "market price".
> > >
> > Who would pay for the difference? Are you going to add taxes to the rest
> > of the fuel sold to make up for this? And who needs just ten gallons a
> > week? How about the people who live in the West and need more because
> > they have to drive greater distances?
>
> They choose to live greater distances from work. Ten gal. per week with a
> 20 mpg car takes care of a 40 mile round trip to work, enough for most people.
> A hybrid will support an 80 mile commute, hummer-20 miles.
>
But all your energy at market prices.
> > > Gas was rationed during world war II, you know a
> > > real war.
> > >
> > Do you want a "real war"? The market does a much better job of
> > allocating resources than rationing.
>
> The "market" is currently over-run with speculators and hedge funds. The
> President claims we're in "war time", well gas was rationed during WW II,
> and you could find more on the black market if needed.
>
Rationing isn't the best way to allocate scare resources, in fact it's a
profounding poor way to do so.
john grove
> > > >Forty nine cents one day, a dollar thirty six cents the next day then
> > > >it climbs another sixty eight cents the day after that as the price
> > > >for crude oil (thanks to AWOL Georgie and his FUBAR Foreign Policies)
> > > >is now climbing out of control,which is (as I and many others think)
> > > >going to be the main reason (far and above all others) as why AWOL
> > > >Georgie is now going to be defeated this November 2nd BIGTIME!
> > > >
> > > >gas down the street from your house (or in the case of you Rightards
> > > >your cave) climbs $.20 to $.30 in less than two weeks your Boi Bush is
> > > >going to be in Deep Deep Shit!
> > >
> >
> > for gas today.
> >
> How utterly ignorate of the market and the oil industry are you?
New York Mercantile Exchange
World Financial Center
One North End Avenue
New York, NY 10282-1101
Telephone: (212) 299-2000
Hedge Funds and Speculators, JG