The price of gas

On 22-May-2004, Cub Driver wrote:

Xref: east.cox.net rec.aviation.piloting:387143
X-Received-Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 05:18:09 EDT (news1.east.cox.net)

On Fri, 21 May 2004 13:41:41 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Our American dollar buys a lot less than it did just a few years ago.
Factor *that* in, and gas may be cheaper than it's ever been.

Oil is priced in dollars, so in theory that shouldn't affect us at
all.

Of course, the Saudis sell for dollars and buy stuff in euros, and
they're not stupid. One reason oil is bumping around $40/barrel is
that the oil producers countries want to reclaim their buying power.

Another reason--and probably a much larger one--is the huge growth in
manufacturing (and attendant prosperity) in China and to a lesser
extent India. We can look forward to an era in which the things China
produces (sneakers, radios) will get cheaper and cheaper, while the
things China consumes (oil) will get more expensive.


I dissagree, I think the US standard of living will fall some and Chinas
will rise (as you said).
But there cost will rise, not fall.
My hope is that this will allow the US to start making radios and shoes
again.
They will cost us more, hence the lowewr standard of living, but I can deal
with that.
Everyone cannot be in services, and sustain an economy.

Les





And it is easy to exaggerate the weakness in the dollar. Not too many
years ago the euro was launched at $1.18. Now it is $1.20. Big deal.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...

In our urban society, the threads are intricately woven, so even those
of us who don't fly or don't drive will see the cost of living increase
for a while. We'll survive, but it might not be all milk and honey for a
few years whilst we get used not to the lack of oil, but the lack of
cheap oil.

Y'all worry too much. We have plenty of cheap oil. 5 years ago the price
of gas, for a few months, was 86 cents a gallon. We'll be right back to
where we're supposed to be by winter. Except California, you're problems
are not economic.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 21:27:29 +0100, David CL Francis
wrote in Message-Id:
:

I remember someone talking about nuclear powered aircraft many years
ago. He said that it would solve one aviation problem; about the
placement of the cg. Wherever the reactor was placed, with its
shielding, that's where the cg would be. ;-)


Here's some information on the subject:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000918.html
ATOMIC PLANES IN THE WORKS?
The first line sure is juicy: "After more than six decades of
research, the first atom-powered airplane is cleared for takeoff."

And even if the substance doesn't quite back up the tantalizing intro
in the current Popular Mechanics -- which it doesn't -- this is still
an interesting concept.

The attraction of a nuclear plane is that it doesn't run out of fuel.
Convert a drone to atomic power, and it could stay aloft just about
forever, the thinking goes.

The nuclear drone wouldn't have a traditional fission reactor, running
on uranium or plutonium. Instead, it would be powered by hafnium-178.

"In the late 1990s, researchers at the University of Texas in Dallas
made a remarkable and unexpected discovery about [halfnium]," the
magazine says. "When they bombarded the metal with 'soft' X-rays like
those your dentist uses to examine your teeth, the metal released a
burst of gamma rays 60 times more powerful than the X-rays."

This reaction could be safer than conventional ones, the magazine
argues.

"The gamma ray output drops precipitously the moment power to the
X-ray machine is turned off... Since it produces only gamma radiation,
less shielding is required. And should an accident occur, there is
less of an environmental concern than with fission. Hafnium-178 has a
half-life of only 31 years compared to thousands of years for other
reactor fuels. In addition, unlike uranium or plutonium, hafnium-178
cannot support a chain reaction, which means it cannot be used to make
rogue nuclear weapons."

But, despite the potentially attractive features, an atomic drone is
nowhere near takeoff.

"Project managers for Northrop Grumman and the U.S. Air Force Research
Laboratory tell Popular Mechanics they have begun discussions that
could lead to the conversion of a Global Hawk [drone] to a
nuclear-powered aircraft… They have not yet signed a contract to
convert a Global Hawk to nuclear power, they are aware of discussions
taking place within the Air Force." (emphasis mine)

THERE'S MO Some scientists are pouring cold water all over the
halfnium idea, reader MS points out. "May not make physical sense,"
was the opinion of 5 of 12 Pentagon researchers appointed to look into
halfnium bombs.

AND MO Defense Tech "deserves better than Popular Mechanics doing a
fair imitation of the National Inquirer," says Los Alamos consultant
and nuclear proliferation expert Russell Seitz.

With so-called "isomers" like halfnium-178, he writes, "energy has
both to be put in and gotten out. The mere fact that more and better
physicists using fiercer x-ray sources and more sensitive gamma
detectors can't get any signal out of the same isotopes -- even upon
many experimental iterations and variations -- satisfies me that
[this] is just another example of the economics of desire."

AND MO The Defense Department was looking at atomic planes back in
the 1940's, reader JM notes, with a project called "Nuclear Energy for
the Propulsion of Aircraft," or NEPA. And for a year or so, the
Pentagon considered irradiating human test subjects, to see how much
nuclear exposure pilots could take. After Manhattan Project scientist
Dr. Joseph Hamilton pointed out that such experiments would have "a
little of the Buchenwald touch," the idea was finally, and thankfully,
dropped.


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...
Wasn't there an article in the WSJ a week or two ago where some oil
company
execs said the regs weren't the primary issue?

I didn't look into it further. What's the problem? Failure of the
marketplace to place sufficient refining capacity on line?

If there's not enough capacity to meet the market demand, that would
indicate the market palce is not acting without significant interference.

The price of
bringing more well capacity online is too high or unpalatable to the
public?
What? Or is it working the way it's supposed to and there are just a
bunch
of people annoyed at higher prices?

Check out how much it costs to get past the EPA and the rest fo the
government alphabet soup to build refining capacity, to drill, or other
facilities.

Are you an expert in the field (no pun intended) or just going with a gut
feeling? Just curious, because while I would gladly discuss with someone
with significant industry knowledge I really don't have any time to debate
environmental politics or with someone who bases their knowledge on one
party's propaganda (either one). No offense but it's late.

No offense, but you can look up hard data, and stay away from the mainstream
media, who are not known as experts, either, not just party propaganda (in
my case the CATO Institute, which is non-partisan...they give Dem's and
Repug's both barrels)


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...
This doesn't sound right. Are you saying the "EPA and others,"
meaning
government regulation, reduced the oil well reserves?

Reserves (from the time) and known resources are much higher than what
we're
extracting.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
So you don't have a source?


Hold on...

You keep using PRODUCTION while I'm talking about CONSUMPTION.

Mike
MU-2

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Are you sure about this data? I don't have data back to 1978 but
input
into
refineries has gone from 11.7 million barrels a day to 15.9 from 1982
through last week. I find it hard to believe that petroleum
consumption
dropped by 1/3 from 1978 to 1982
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/ftparea/wogirs/xls/psw10vwcr.xls'

Mike
MU-2

CONSUMED!

And remember the price skyrocketing from 1978...the lines around the
corner?

That's also when the Detroit battleships went a gleaming...


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...
What I do know is that the heavy use of oil has had adverse
environmental
effects and has created dangerous instability in the Middle East.
I
believe
that it would be in this country's best interests to somehow
decrease
reliance on foreign oil, and preferrably, reduce oil usage
overall.
I
do
not know the best way to accomplish those goals.

"Over time, thanks to technology, we've gotten much more efficient
in
the
way we use gasoline, oil, and energy of all kinds. In 1974 when the
first
"oil crisis" hit, it took over 17 quadrillion BTUs of energy to
produce
$1
million of gross domestic product (measured in constant year-2000
dollars).
Today it takes less then 10 quadrillion BTUs.

One more statistic: in 1978 the US consumed over 18 million barrels
of
oil
every day, when annual GDP was $5 trillion. Today we use only 10%
more
oil
every day than we did then, but GDP has more than doubled to almost
$11
trillion."

Eeeek. What a mess.

"We're from Washington, and we're here to help you..."



"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...

This doesn't sound right. Are you saying the "EPA and others," meaning
government regulation, reduced the oil well reserves?



I was there at the scene of the crime.

There are really two 'shortages' in domestic production.

One is the shortfall in refinery capacity. We haven't built a new refinery
in
the US for 15 years, and that is entirely because of EPA regs and NIMBY
protests disguised as environmental concern.

But the shortfall in recovering domestic reserves is more complicated.
Enviromentalism is part of it, but there are economic reasons as well.

In the 70's and into the early 80's, we had a lot of domestic capability,
and
the JR Ewings of the country saved our butts during the embargo.
Unfortunately
for them, they made a lot of money doing it, so we destroyed them.

First was the "Windfall Profits Tax". Oil exploration has always been boom
and
bust. Wildcatters made alot of money during the booms and invested in new
equipment and grew their companies during those times. During the lean
years,
the capital reserves sustained them to the next boom. So, Nixon and Ford,
seeing the boom during the embargo years, called those profits obscene and
confiscated them with the "Windfall Profits Tax." Carter continued the
price
controls Nixon started, then dropped them on everything EXCEPT petroleum
and
health care, bleeding the Ewings with skyrocketing costs and controled
prices
for their products. Then he finished off the domestic oil industry with
the
Fuel Use Act, which attempted to force gas producers to sell their gas to
homeowners in the NorthEast at prices that did not justify the pipeline
capacity needed to get it there, by not letting them sell the gas to
industry
in the South were they could make a profit at the controlled prices.

So, all our JR Ewings went bankrupt. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth
of
equipment rusted away or was sold for scrap. The Arabs put the final nail
in
the coffin by boosting production so the price feel for a while to 11 or
12
dollars a barrel.

Now, all the wildcatters who know how to get the oil have huge
bankruptcies in
the resume and can't raise the money for new equipment. Further, the banks
know
that the Arabs can drop the price any time they want to drive domestic
producers broke if they become a threat to their monopoly. So the banks
arent'
going to finance domestic production so long as th Arabs can manipulate
the
market to destroy their competitors.

The field is left to a few multinationals. And we're screwed.

Government meddling in the free market did it, but it was alot more
complicated
than the EPA alone.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

On Sat, 22 May 2004 09:31:00 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote:

In our urban society, the threads are intricately woven,

Indeed they are, and globally as well. Oil at $40/bbl affects Europe
and China as much as it does the U.S.

America-bashers like to point out that the U.S. greedily consumes 25
percent of the world's energy. Of course, it follows that 75 percent
of the world's energy is consumed outside of the U.S., and that the
U.S. has a correspondingly small influence on the price and
availability of oil.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

On Sat, 22 May 2004 12:15:21 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote:

For the last few years, the norm was GBP1 = $1.50)

When the euro was launched, the pound was $1.60, so the change isn't
really that much. While the drop against the euro under 2 percent, the
drop against the pound is 12.5 percent.

The seemingly big drop in the value of a dollar against the euro is
mostly the result of looking at it against a very strong dollar in
2001. The GBP has strengthened generally, against the euro as well as
the dollar.

I think we will see parity of the dollar vs the euro sooner than we'll
see $30/bbl oil.



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

On Sat, 22 May 2004 12:44:50 GMT, wrote:

I dissagree, I think the US standard of living will fall some and Chinas
will rise (as you said).

No, that's not what I said. The American standard of living will
probably continue to rise, thanks to the unequaled productivity of
American workers (now mostly in service sectors rather than in farming
or manufacturing). The growth rate over the past year is close to 5
percent, which is something you expect from developing economies, not
developed ones.

To the extent that trade influences standard of living, the downward
push by higher oil prices will probably be more than offset by the
upward push by the lower cost of imported goods from China and
imported services from India.

China's standard of living will rise also. That's the glory of trade:
everybody wins, if the protectionists get out of the way.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

thanks to the unequaled productivity of
American workers


How measured? GNP per capita is not necessarily a good measure. How about GNP
per salary dollar? That more closely reflects what business is looking at when
they choose to outsource.

Do you want a high efficiency engine, or a high output engine? Depends how you
want to fly.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)