Gas Prices -- Help at last?

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 16:06:00 -0700, RST Engineering wrote:

Another German jerk know-it-all.

you can call me everything, but not a German. :-)

I've got my well pipe down 250' (that's 75
meters for you idiots on the metric system)

to each his own

into pure snow and ice runoff
from the Sierra.

Good for you. How man of you have access to such good water? True enough,
many parts of Europe also face problems with their water supply. Next wars
will be fought because of water, not oil.

Betcha mine is cleaner than yours.

I hold this bet.

Jim

#m

--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 23:36:05 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:


Yes, has anyone an example of a government run business or anything else
for that matter that ever turned a profit?


Davis Monthan Air Force Base with selling aircraft parts (hey, seems to be
on topic) is the only US military facility making a profit (so I was told
at a tour there)

#m
--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 22:43:10 -0000, Pesky Irritant
wrote:

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
[article with zero aviation content snipped]

You forgot to put "OT:" in your subject line.

Quite right - as any good airman knows, aircraft are powered by wishing
really really hard, not gasoline!

No, you missed that one in ground school.

Aircraft are powered by money. Cost of operation is based on the
square of the speed, distance/range, and capacity of the aircraft and
proportional to the square of the time spent in storage.

IE, it's going to cost a bunch based on the capability of the aircraft
whether you fly it or not.

Aircraft have emotions and will get even if you let them just set in a
hangar some where.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

So gasoline has nothing to do with aviation, and anything you read
otherwise are lies.

Remember - don't fill your tanks with gas - fill them with wishes! Saves
money and you get to make engine noises like you did when you were a kid.

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 15:09:52 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
[article with zero aviation content snipped]

You forgot to put "OT:" in your subject line.

Three days and the original post has never made it to my server yet.
Unless some one broke the thread.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 05:36:35 GMT, Dave S
wrote:



Jay Honeck wrote:
Agreed, OT, and just another win for BIG OIL. I hope the senate has a
better handle on what subsidies look like and what profits are for...


Did you READ the article? There hasn't been a new refinery built in the
U.S. since I was a senior in high school -- 29 years ago!

snip

The oil companies havent gone into bankruptcy in droves over 20 odd
years, if anything they have made money hand over fist. They have not
increased their refining capacity because it would decrease their
overall PROFIT margin. Building new refining capacity to "standard"
would drive their incremental cost of production UP, and eat into the
stockholders dividends. But make no mistake, it would still be PROFIT.

What we are celebrating is the deliberate browbeating of the elected
Republican representatives of the House by the Republican Leadership. I
What we are seeing is two things.
Environmental regs that are preventing new refineries, but new
refineries would be one of the worst mistakes we could make.

The refineries are getting rich and we are becoming more dependent on
foreign oil for one reason. The whole system operates on supply and
demand. If we as individuals didn't use so much of the stuff the
refineries wouldn't be charging so much, we wouldn't be importing so
much and the world would be a more peaceful place.

If I have my figures any where near correct, if we had a quarter of
the cars on the road getting the mileage of the Prius, we'd have no
need for importing oil and the price of oil would go down.

However, I've come to the unhappy conclusion that the average driver
is only going to conserve when forced to do so by high prices. With
prices between $2.75 and $3.00 the demand for crude has already
dropped. At $3.50 the refineries would no longer be operating at
capacity. We really need about 3 or 4 months of at least $3.00 gas.
Then it'll get cheap and the refineries will be operating no where
near capacity so the need to build more will be gone. I'm not
thrilled about paying high prices as I'm retired, on a pension, and
social security, but it's about the only thing that will make people
conserve.

Another unfortunate conclusion is it's going to take fuel prices in
that range to make alternative energy sources widely competitive.

If the drivers conserved to the point of forcing gas prices down
there'd be plenty of capacity for avgas. Unfortunately, some where in
the future I think the higher compression engines (like mine) are
going to require specialty fuels, or additives. Once the higher
powered diesels become widely available 100LL, its equivalent, or
additives for something to get that high are going to make today's
prices look mighty good. The only gas burners left will be the low
compression ones that can burn autogas. Except of course here in
Michigan where they no longer list on the pump whether the gas
contains alcohol or not.

That means there will be a lot of planes in the $60,000 to $120,000
range requiring $50,000 to $60,000 conversions to keep flying. How
many do you think will do that to a plane that is worth about the cost
of the conversion?
snip

You want the truth about oil and gas prices? 5 weeks ago when the oil
prices his $70 or so a barrel, the gas prices popped up over $3 a gallon

Some where along the line some one had to pay for that crude. It's
called speculation.

within days. The OIL that was that expensive was still to be in the boat
being shipped over from Saudi and Venezuela for days to weeks longer. We
paid a premium on refined product that was already in the inventory.
Legalized price gouging, anyone?

It doesn't work that way. You have to pay what it is going to take to
replace what is in the inventory. Then you base future charges on
what you think you are going to have to pay to fill the tanks next
time.

If you want to complain, wait until you see what LP gas does this
winter. As for natural gas, they sold most of ours in Michigan to
California two years ago when California screwed up. We had a nice
reserve until then. There currently is a limited supply that can be
used/accessed so it's going to get down right expensive this winter
and at the mid 30s right now I already have the heat on in both the
house and shop.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


You wanted OT.. you got it
Dave

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 02:35:30 -0400, Roger wrote:

Environmental regs that are preventing new refineries, but new
refineries would be one of the worst mistakes we could make.

not really, IMVHO.

your current refineries work with high losses. a poor product, little
overall output and old technology. A new refinery will be able to work up
to current standards, produce better products at lesser costs.

Meanwhile you would be able to search for viable alternatives. Within the
next 20 or so years you should have applied them (this is true for all of
us).

#m

--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

Agreed, OT, and just another win for BIG OIL. I hope the senate has a
better handle on what subsidies look like and what profits are for...

Personally, I would much rather have Big Oil in charge of energy
development than the U.S. Senate.

Jane Fonda has promised to lead an anti-war rally next spring (!)
driving to Washington in a bus powered by soy oil. That's what we'd
have with a U.S. Senate-based energy policy: vegetable-powered busses
that take six months to get ready for a trip.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

If they need refineries so badly, why did they close the
ones they had?

EPA.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 03:41:28 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

It will make fascinating reading, trying to discern the real reasons that an
oil company would close a badly needed oil refinery.

Because meeting EPA regulations costs more than the refined products
could ever pay back.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 08:38:26 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

If they are all so costly, then why havent they built new capacity?

Because we won't let them!

The one in Arizona is going on ten years now, and the environmental
lobby is looking to stretch out approval for a few more months, until
the clock runs out on the existing environmental impact statement.
Then the company can start all over again.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com