Re: Ethanol and WTF?
RichG
I moved my 16 ft Carolina Skiff with 40 yamaha 2 cycle from Texas
(non-ethanol) to Wisconsin (Ethanol) a few years ago. Shortly after I
first used the motor in Wisconsin ( perhaps shortly after my first tank of
Wisconsin gas) my engine started acting weird. It would hesitate; it was
hard to start; and finally ... it wouldn't re-start once I got on the lake.
After doing some reading, I replaced the fuel hose and bulb and all was well
again. I assumed that it was just a failing hose/bulb issue....until I did
some further reading...
What I read ( and what you have already read) was that the first tank or so
of Ethanol "cleaned out" all of the "crud" that had built up in 4 year old
fuel system. That crap made its way to the engine and to the fuel line and
plugged it up. In my case, I got lucky with just replacing a
fuel/line/bulb. It may well be that the inside lining of the fuel/line/bulb
was deteriorating on its own, and Ethanol just helped that process along too
quickly. Other boaters, ( I have read) have had to have their engines fuel
system (filters, lines, carbs ) cleaned more thoroughly. after using a tank
or two of Ethanol based gasoline.
I see that Texas has just introduced an optional mixture of ... 85%
Ethanol/15% gasoline ... in certain stations. I wonder what THAT will do
to my Texas based boat???
RichG TX --
manager, Carolina Skiff Owners Group on MSN
http://groups.msn.com/CarolinaSkiffOwners
.
thunder
> Also that you need to keep your
> tanks full to prevent the ethanol from picking up stray water from
> condensation.
Isn't picking up stray water a good thing? People have been using Dry Gas
for years to rid their tanks of water. Dry Gas is ethanol.
tsch...@gmail.com
Ethanol/15% gasoline ... in certain stations. I wonder what THAT will
do
to my Texas based boat???
It will burn your two-stroke up!
I'm suprised you didn't do it with the ethanl (wisconsin) blend .
Two cycle oil has a difficult time mixing with the alcohol in the fuel.
when E-85 first hit this area. it was considerably cheaper than regular
fossil fuel.
some el-cheapo's decided that was the way to go fir "feeshin' in the
locak lake. The local mechanic had a a great time replacing power heads
and complete engines beliving E-85 was a God-send!
People wouldn't believe that the Ethanol would destroy a two-stroke
after all "gas-is-gas".
he had a jar with E-85 in it, with some two stroke oil. You could shake
up that jar like a hula girl. Stop. and watch the oil imediatly float
to the top. it didn't mix one bit.
One bad thing is a lot of gas stations will throw in yup to 15%
ethanol, without advertizing it at the pumps. so you have to be careful
where you buy your fuel.
My lowly little Chris Craft has a 4-cyl Chevy 3.0, and I burn the 15%
Ethanol in it. but usually throw a little bottle of HEET in with a tank
ful.
Tim
Del Cecchi
<tsch...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144205401....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
have oxygenate in the fuel. Some places used to use MBTE, but now many
use ethanol. In 07 Minnesota is going to 20 percent. What's good for
the corn farmers is good for you.
Some stations here have "boat gas" without ethanol, for off road use
only.
del
basskisser
tsch...@gmail.com wrote:
> I see that Texas has just introduced an optional mixture of ... 85%
> Ethanol/15% gasoline ... in certain stations. I wonder what THAT will
> do
> to my Texas based boat???
>
>
> It will burn your two-stroke up!
>
> I'm suprised you didn't do it with the ethanl (wisconsin) blend .
>
> Two cycle oil has a difficult time mixing with the alcohol in the fuel.
>
> when E-85 first hit this area. it was considerably cheaper than regular
> fossil fuel.
>
> some el-cheapo's decided that was the way to go fir "feeshin' in the
> locak lake. The local mechanic had a a great time replacing power heads
> and complete engines beliving E-85 was a God-send!
>
> People wouldn't believe that the Ethanol would destroy a two-stroke
> after all "gas-is-gas".
>
> he had a jar with E-85 in it, with some two stroke oil. You could shake
> up that jar like a hula girl. Stop. and watch the oil imediatly float
> to the top. it didn't mix one bit.
I don't believe that at all. How does the ethanol mix with the gas, if
it won't mix with the oil? Also, how does the ethanol, at 15% keep the
oil from mixing with the 85% gasoline?
Del Cecchi
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 22:12:49 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
> <delcecchi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In most places, Minnesota included, gas stations are required by law to
>>have oxygenate in the fuel. Some places used to use MBTE, but now many
>>use ethanol. In 07 Minnesota is going to 20 percent. What's good for
>>the corn farmers is good for you.
>
>
Most of the ethanol used in the us is made in the us.
Brazilian ethanol is made from sugar cane.
--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”
Del Cecchi
<gfre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:k90832poba9p22elg...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:19:43 -0500, Del Cecchi
> <cecchi...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>>Most of the ethanol used in the us is made in the us.
>>
>>Brazilian ethanol is made from sugar cane.
>
> lot more energy to make it than you get when you burn it) I can't
> imagine how shipping it very far can make any sense at all.
> The only thing that might be worse in efficiency terms is the hydrogen
> boondoggle.
The energy required to make ethanol is apparently a controversial
question. For example some folks count the energy to manufacture the
tractor used to grow the corn. Some count the energy to mine the iron to
make the tractor. Some add in the energy to make the trucks and power
shovels to mine the iron to make the tractor. Some add the energy to
make the factory to process the iron ore. And so on with the fertilizer
etc. Then they compare to the energy in a gallon of gasoline.
At least ethanol is pretty much neutral with respect to carbon balance.
del
del
tsch...@gmail.com
basskisser wrote:
> tsch...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I don't believe that at all. How does the ethanol mix with the gas, if
> it won't mix with the oil? Also, how does the ethanol, at 15% keep the
> oil from mixing with the 85% gasoline?
Actually it's pretty simple. Over a period of time, the alcohol WILL
seperate fromt he peteroleum...but not instantly.
The properties of the 2-cycle mix will mix well with the gasoline, but
will avoid the alcohol, and when running the E-85 (85% alcohol) it
won't hardly mix at all. The fuel turns into little droplets that jsut
sort of suspend to the top of the fluid in the container.
So when running the E-85, even on an automatic oil-injected engine. you
have the raw , DRY, alcohol fuel, with globs of oil splattering around
in the combustion chambers as well as in the crank case and the
bearings and rings don't get the adiquate lubrication they need. PLUS,
you have to run a leaner fuel to air mixture, which unless the engine
is made for such, will cause the combustion to be much hotter, and
needless to say, the engine and components will suffer due to not only
the excess friction, but way higher combustion temp.
i did some looking around and found a pretty good example of this
scenerio:
http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/669605551/m/638107099/r/983104299
I realize he's talking abotu a junk chainsaw, but look at Tim's second
post. It pretty well tells what the problem's one would face,
especially on an older 2 cycle outboard.
Jack Redington
> I'm hearing some rather disturbing things about the addition of
> ethanol to gas and in particular as it relates to boats.
>
> One is having to flush tanks before using ethanol to get rid of any
> sediment and water that may be lurking. Also that you need to keep
> your tanks full to prevent the ethanol from picking up stray water
> from condensation.
>
>
I think it was last month that BoatUS had a artical about ethanol in
older fiberglass tanks. They were doing so testing that was not yet
finished.
The testing was prompted due to a high number of older boat having
engine failures with black sludge in the engine. They are suspecting
that the fibreglass is having some sort of reaction due to the ethanol.
The most failures were in the NY and upper North East with one in Calif.
You might find somthing on there web site about it if you look around.
Capt Jack R..
Del Cecchi
"Shortwave Sportfishing" <onetw...@four.com> wrote in message
news:ab883213glsit8tl1...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 22:12:49 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
>>> <delcecchi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In most places, Minnesota included, gas stations are required by law
>>>>to
>>>>have oxygenate in the fuel. Some places used to use MBTE, but now
>>>>many
>>>>use ethanol. In 07 Minnesota is going to 20 percent. What's good
>>>>for
>>>>the corn farmers is good for you.
>>>
>>>
>>> Certainly helps the corn farmers in Brazil.
>>Most of the ethanol used in the us is made in the us.
>
>
> The rest comes from Brazil and Mexico.
>
>>Brazilian ethanol is made from sugar cane.
>
Apparently your statistic above is a joke also. A few minutes searching
produced
"The U.S. ethanol industry produced a record 3.9 billion gallons of fuel
in 2005, according to the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA). In December
2005, ethanol fuel production reached 364.4 million gallons, but fell
short of demand, which rocketed to 403.2 million gallons. The excess
demand was partially met by imports of 32.2 million gallons of ethanol,
while 233.6 million gallons of ethanol in storage provide about 20 days
of reserve to help meet demand. "
So 90 percent is domestic production. Thanks for playing.
del
basskisser
tsch...@gmail.com wrote:
> basskisser wrote:
> > tsch...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't believe that at all. How does the ethanol mix with the gas, if
> > it won't mix with the oil? Also, how does the ethanol, at 15% keep the
> > oil from mixing with the 85% gasoline?
>
> Actually it's pretty simple. Over a period of time, the alcohol WILL
> seperate fromt he peteroleum...but not instantly.
>
> The properties of the 2-cycle mix will mix well with the gasoline, but
> will avoid the alcohol, and when running the E-85 (85% alcohol) it
> won't hardly mix at all. The fuel turns into little droplets that jsut
> sort of suspend to the top of the fluid in the container.
Uh, E-85 isn't 85% alcohol, it's 85% gasoline!
>
> So when running the E-85, even on an automatic oil-injected engine. you
> have the raw , DRY, alcohol fuel, with globs of oil splattering around
> in the combustion chambers as well as in the crank case and the
> bearings and rings don't get the adiquate lubrication they need. PLUS,
> you have to run a leaner fuel to air mixture, which unless the engine
> is made for such, will cause the combustion to be much hotter, and
> needless to say, the engine and components will suffer due to not only
> the excess friction, but way higher combustion temp.
>
> i did some looking around and found a pretty good example of this
> scenerio:
>
> http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/669605551/m/638107099/r/983104299
>
> I realize he's talking abotu a junk chainsaw, but look at Tim's second
> post. It pretty well tells what the problem's one would face,
> especially on an older 2 cycle outboard.
Where does that link say ANYTHING about the oil not mixing with E-85
properly? All you've given so far is hyperbole. I've not seen one tiny
bit of convincing evidence that backs up your contention that oil won't
mix with E-85. Do you have any? What's more, E-85 actually runs cooler
than unleaded gasoline, that actually being a good thing for your
engine. It also burns cleaner, another good thing for your engine.
Butch Davis
going to be burning fuel of 85 % alcohol 15% gasoline in my FICHT.
YMMV?
Butch
"Shortwave Sportfishing" <onetw...@four.com> wrote in message
news:l9q832d9j8gthbhu6...@4ax.com...
> I don't have to worry about that because my tanks are poly and pretty
> immune to that - I think.
>
> Thanks for the heads up though.
Del Cecchi
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 19:48:57 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
>
> You need to read business journals and investment bulletins a little
> more.
>
> Thanks for playing.
can't do numbers, eh? even if all in storage were imported it would
still be less than 10 percent of domestic production in 05. Point at a
link to "investement journal" or other source that says different.
Perhaps you are confused about future projections rather that present
situation.
del
tsch...@gmail.com
>
> Uh, E-85 isn't 85% alcohol, it's 85% gasoline!
>
> properly? All you've given so far is hyperbole. I've not seen one tiny
> bit of convincing evidence that backs up your contention that oil won't
> mix with E-85. Do you have any? What's more, E-85 actually runs cooler
> than unleaded gasoline, that actually being a good thing for your
> engine. It also burns cleaner, another good thing for your engine.
wrong-o.
89.5 octane is an approx 10% alcohol blend with the unleaded gas.
E-85 is 85% alcohol with 15% fossil fuel.
Tell you what. I think you should load up your outboard with E-85 and
the typical recommended 2-stroke oil mix.
Go to the lake with my blessing. Have fun and enjoy the day! No need
for a tow rope even if it doesn't take up much space in the bow
compartment.
Go in peace. ; )
DSK
>>materials, they set the prices (and *availability*) of our energy
>>supply.
gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> The marketplace sets the price, not the arabs.
>
Well, that's true... I guess those OPEC meetings where they
make agreements about how much they'll pump, and what
they'll charge... it's part of "the marketplace." And if a
group of oil producing countries decide not to sell to the
U.S. for some political reason, then we can always buy from
somebody else... probably at a higher price of course, with
the laws of supply & demand being what they are... but
that's all part of "the marketplace" too.
Isn't it nice to dismiss somebody else's statements, and go
on as if you've proved something!
DSK
tsch...@gmail.com
basskisser wrote:
> tsch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > basskisser wrote:
What's more, E-85 actually runs cooler
> than unleaded gasoline, that actually being a good thing for your
> engine. It also burns cleaner, another good thing for your engine.
Oh, such genius! How could I have been so mistaken....
Burns cooler? that IS true and sounds great in theory, but not in
practice.
Your outboard, must be re-jetted, to put more fuel into combustion.
otherwise, the engine runs "lean" and your combustion temperatures rise
dramatically. ie you over heat the thing! PLUS! on the standard
carburation, you have to burn more fuel to get the performance you
would normally have with the standard fossil fuel/oil mix.
So...
You have a) poor combustion, b) hotter ignition and 3) really poor
lubrication.
Strike 3... your out!
you know, you could actually research some of this before being so
skeptical.
Here's a good link for you. This guy pretty well backs what I've been
talking about...
http://www.dootalk.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t40491.html
But please. Load your two cycle boat up with e-85 and head out to the
lake.
And enjoy the day!
RCE
"basskisser" <atl_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144333579.6...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Uh, E-85 isn't 85% alcohol, it's 85% gasoline!
>>
You sure about that?
I thought E-85 was 85% ethanol and 15% gas.
RCE
JimH
"RCE" <r...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:IYWdnZYq7d7...@giganews.com...
Correct. That is why it is called E85.
http://news.carjunky.com/automotive/e85_fuel_ab1392.shtml
http://www.e85specials.com/e85/?kw=e85%20fuel&referrer=GoogleAdWordsSearch
Dan Krueger
> "Del Cecchi" <delcecchi...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:49gqt7F...@individual.net:
>
>
>>In most places, Minnesota included, gas stations are required by law to
>>have oxygenate in the fuel. Some places used to use MBTE, but now many
>>use ethanol. In 07 Minnesota is going to 20 percent. What's good for
>>the corn farmers is good for you.
>
>
> Except that corn syrup is used as a sugar substitute in most commercial
> foodstuffs, because the federal sugar program makes sugar so expensive.
> As more corn is used for ethanol production, expect your grocery bill to
> increase. And you can be sure the feds won't repeal the corrupt and
> obscene "pay not to grow" programs.
Time to buy ADM stock?
Lars Johansson
"Gene Kearns" <ewke...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:km9a325rh2fuqa87f...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 00:05:05 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
...
> >Who knows what the price will have to be to make ethanol viable on any
> >large scale. At a certain point we are burning food and that doesn't
> >sound sustainable either. What is the environmemntal effect of turning
> >more wilderness into farm land to support a huge biofuel market?
> >
>
> I think this is short sighted. Stop with the fossil fuel substitute
> thoughts already.... think outside the box. Ethanol will, most likely,
> *always* be a poor fuel source because, per unit volume, it just
> doesn't contain that much heat energy. That coupled with its
> hygroscopic properties and it (IMHO) just sucks as an energy source.
I think fuel consumtion goes up by 30% when you switch from gas to ethanol.
So you loose that range. Not a big deal.
The great benefit of ethanol over other alternatives is you can introduce it
in little by little. It requires very small changes to the engines. If
needed all new cars could be ready "now" and a large portion of old cars
could be easily modified. Very small changes to the fillingstations and
distribution are needed , and you can run on any mixure of gas and alcohol.
The only existing alternative I know of is gas (gas-gas, not petrol-gas), It
requires larger changes to the car, although it still uses the internal
combustion engine. You need to to keep the gas-(petrol)-tank in addition to
the gas-(gas)-tank until the infastructure cathes up, and the changes there
are greater.
For battery electric you need completly new cars and fillingstations, and
much better batteries are needed for it to be useful.
For Fuel-cell electric you also need a completly newe car, but if you run on
ethanol the changes to the infastructure are small. But fuel-cells are not
ready yet, either.
So ethanol in todays cars might not be the "final" solution, but what
carries us over for the next few decades.
/Lars J
Del Cecchi
<gfre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8vpb32l5evm4d6dmq...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 14:12:53 -0400, DSK <d...@dontbotherme.com> wrote:
>
>>Well, that's true... I guess those OPEC meetings where they
>>make agreements about how much they'll pump, and what
>>they'll charge... it's part of "the marketplace."
> the oil boycotts you see on the net. They need to sell it as bad as we
> need to buy oit. The price spikes are more closely related to demand
> and (US) refinery problems than any OPEC action.
> The reality is the whole world is using more oil than they ever did
> before so the price is up.
>
> The biofuel boondoggle is only going to replace Exxon/Mobile with
> Archer Danierls Midland and third world farmers who clear more rain
> forests to grow sugars for the still..
> That is not any solution to saving the planet.
I believe the favored solution of prominent ecologists is airborn ebola.
Preferably preceded by vaccinations for prominent ecologists.
tsch...@gmail.com
Butch Davis wrote:
> You know, all the preceeding discussion (?) aside.... I don't think I'm
> going to be burning fuel of 85 % alcohol 15% gasoline in my FICHT.
>
> YMMV?
The wiser choice, I'm sure..
Del Cecchi
"Gene Kearns" <gene.b...@myworkshop.idleplay.net> wrote in message
news:h3a842tkd298r16m7...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:44:17 GMT, Fred Dehl penned the following well
> considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
>
>
>>> I'm not idiot enough to make statements like that without empirical
>>> proof....
>>
>>1. Go to the gas station.
>>2. Look at the sticker enumerating the taxes per gallon.
>>3. Go to finance.yahoo.com or download the pdf of the annual report of
>>the oil company of your choice.
>>4. Use a calculator to determine profit per gallon.
>
> So, you make a loonie statement and I'm supposed to try to prove it to
> myself. Says a lot about your credibility, right?
>
>>5. Admit I was right as usual.
>
> And that says a lot more about your narcissism and the reason you post
> such tripe... you only have to say it to make it true... right?
>
> Fred Dehl: a legend in his own mind....
>
>>> Besides, taxes aren't at issue. In NC, gasoline taxes pay for the
>>> roads.
>>
>>No, they pay for Jim Black's illegal slush funds.
>
> And the NC Speaker of the House has... uh, what, to do with this? Are
> you under the illusion that he somehow has a secret job with NCDOT?
> You are a very confused person!
>
>
>>> My problem is the windfall profits made by the petroleum companies
>>> during a time of skyrocketing gasoline costs. In NC, the gasoline tax
>>> is tied to the price of gasoline.... so the petro companies boost the
>>> prices to make obscene profits and the tax increases accordingly....
>>> both the fault and direct result of petro-greed.
>>
>>Have you lobbied the legislature to change the law? Or are you a
>>beneficiary of Jim Black's illegal slush funds?
>
> What ARE you talking about?
>
> --
>
> Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.
>
> Homepage
> http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/
>
> Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
> http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
OK, Exxon Mobil (xom) operating margin is 16 percent and profit margin is
11 percent. Gas wholesale is 2.16 (may delivery) so operating margin is
about 35 cents per gallon, if uniform across all products. didn't try
to verify that .
In Minnesota, 18.4 cents federal, and 22 cents state tax for a total of
40.4 cents per gallon.
That's the calculation. no name calling. took about 10 minutes tops.
In NC, state tax is more (17.5 +7% of wholesale) or about 30 cents.
del
Del Cecchi
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:20:07 -0500, Del Cecchi penned the following
> well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
>
>
>>
>>
>
> largest number of miles of state built and maintained roads in the US.
>
> --
>
> Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.
>
> Homepage
> http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/
>
gets more off a gallon of gas, state+fed or exxon? I wasn't criticizing,
just throwing in another datapoint. Minnesota because I live here, and
NC because you do. You were the one that seemed to be disputing the
taxes > profit assertion. Wasn't it you?
I like NC roads, btw.
del
jps
gene.b...@myworkshop.idleplay.net says...
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:48:11 GMT, Fred Dehl penned the following well
> considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
This is giving Fred way the heck too much credit.
Made me laugh tho'
jps
tsch...@gmail.com
Fred Dehl wrote:
> Learn about the fucking state you fucking live in you fucking little shit.
That's tellin' 'em, Fred......
jps
says...
> Learn about the fucking state you fucking live in you fucking little shit.
Someone has finally eclipsed me at my filthiest and he didn't even make
a point while doing it. What a horrible waste of filthy language.
Gene, I don't think he's seen your picture.
jps
RCE
"jps" <tr...@thedump.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1eae0c78f...@news.seanet.com...
I am not a prude by any means, but I've noticed that you've cleaned your act
up a bit, language-wise, and some of the silent lurkers who are a little
more offended by such language appreciate it.
Fred's just out of control. I doubt I'd even throw him a line if he were
sinking.
RCE
RCE
"Harry Krause" <harry....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:juCdnbnji4X...@comcast.com...
>
Heh, no. But, I often get the reports of their activities.
RCE
Del Cecchi
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 02:24:03 GMT, Fred Dehl <fred...@nyc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>And the NC Speaker of the House has... uh, what, to do with this? Are
>>>you under the illusion that he somehow has a secret job with NCDOT?
>>
>>
>
>
> This "slush fund" as you describe it is appropriated in the state
> budget. You might want to include Marc Basnight into this mess as
> well. Both Basnight and Black are shady.
>
>
>>Learn about the fucking state you fucking live in you fucking little shit.
>
>
> that says a lot.
>
> Del, since you brought up the name calling aspect, would you like to
> be an apologist for Fred in this matter?
I merely noted that I could provide an estimate without name calling. I
speak for no one but myself. I try hard not to call names or use
invective. I know that folks get mad at oil companies, but it seems to
me that much of the problem isn't their fault.
--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”
jps
r...@nowhere.com says...
Profanity has its place. I like using it for effect but that's just
because I'm a lazy, semi-intellect who can't be bothered fully
explaining simple concepts to brain-dead morons.
Thanks for the g-d damned advice (Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz)!!
jps
basskisser
Fred Dehl wrote:
> Learn about the fucking state you fucking live in you fucking little shit.
Thanks for clarifying the limits of your intellect. It certainly shows
everyone here how credible you are (or aren't!).
tsch...@gmail.com
basskisser wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying the limits of your intellect. It certainly shows
> everyone here how credible you are (or aren't!).
I'm sure we've all noticed how you've backed off the potty-mouthing
quite a bit.
Trying to move up on the credibility chart????
DSK
> .... I know that folks get mad at oil companies, but it seems to
> me that much of the problem isn't their fault.
>
Hmm... what part of the headline 'Oil Companies Continue
Record Profits' do you not understand?
Fact- fuel prices have risen steeply.
Fact- oil companies are raking in more bucks faster then
they ever have before.
Fact- many people ignore the above so as to screech about
taxes being too high.
While I agree that taxes are too high, how can you
completely skip the first two facts?
Would it make it better to call the tax levied on fuel at
the pump a "user fee" since most of it goes to support
automobile related infrastructure?
Considering the condition of said infrastructure, I'd
venture to suggest that fuel 'user fees' could be raised.
It'd be cheaper than getting your car's suspension and drive
train repaired so often from driving on crappy roads. And as
for 'user fees' levied on recreational boating fuel... that
goes to pay for needed infrastructure too.
Regards
Doug King
basskisser
If you have a point, you're not making it.
basskisser
Fred Dehl wrote:
> tsch...@gmail.com wrote in
> news:1145399803.3...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> He could start by telling us which brand of SUV Martians prefer, since
> that's obviously the cause of Mars' temperature increase.
What a profound post, Fred........NOT.
basskisser
Fred Dehl wrote:
> "basskisser" <atl_...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1145452116....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> A new low, even for you.
I guess I could have gone as low as you and just released a few
ignorant profanities, huh? Grow up.
RCE
"Fred Dehl" <fred...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97AAC6810...@66.26.32.7...
> Gene Kearns <gene.b...@myworkshop.idleplay.net> wrote in
> news:irgd42hej0iurpaks...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 22:34:53 GMT, Fred Dehl penned the following well
>> considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
>>
>>>Gene Kearns <gene.b...@myworkshop.idleplay.net> wrote in
>>>news:rh3d42pufeeq1sf0p...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 22:11:25 -0500, Del Cecchi penned the following
>>>> well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
>>>>
>>>>>You were the one that seemed to be disputing the
>>>>>taxes > profit assertion. Wasn't it you?
>>>>>
>>>> I do believe that taxes < profit,
>>>
>>>Despite the overwhelming evidence presented here and elsewhere to the
>>>contrary.
>>>
>>
>> In Germany and Holland there is an incredibly strong positive
>> relationship between the number of storks and the birthrate... thus,
>> to you, I am sure, this *proves* conclusively and beyond a shadow of a
>> doubt that babies are brought by storks.
>>
>> Thus, your overwhelming evidence presented here proves conclusively
>> that the warming of the Martian atmosphere is caused by fuel taxes and
>> Jim Black and has nothing to do, whatsoever, with terrestrial SUVs.
>
> Your incoherence just builds on itself, doesn't it? Suggestion: double
> the medication.
Ah .... I love rec.boats. The entertainment value is simply priceless.
RCE
tsch...@gmail.com
basskisser wrote:
> tsch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > basskisser wrote:
>
> If you have a point, you're not making it.
Kevin, you wouldn't know a point if it poked you in the eye.