Gas Prices -- Help at last?

Jay Honeck wrote:

Bottled water in America is a very effective I.Q. test.

Maybe where you live, but not around here. Run the normal series of tests that
any keeper of marine fish runs on his tank on my tap water and then tell me it's
dumb to pay $1/gallon for bottled water. Next Wednesday I have a job replacing a
toilet. Different water company. The old one clogged up with iron and other
deposits within two years of installation. The plumbing salesman asked "and she
drinks that?"

Good question.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Bottled water in America is a very effective I.Q. test.

Maybe where you live, but not around here. Run the normal series of tests
that any keeper of marine fish runs on his tank on my tap water and then
tell me it's dumb to pay $1/gallon for bottled water. Next Wednesday I
have a job replacing a toilet. Different water company. The old one
clogged up with iron and other deposits within two years of installation.
The plumbing salesman asked "and she drinks that?"

Yech.

Sounds like you folks need a new well? (And/or water treatment plant?)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Dave S" wrote in message
news
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.


Refining capacity for gasoline has increased 3X over the period while no new
refineries were built.

Mike
MU-2

Refining capacity for gasoline has increased 3X over the period while no
new refineries were built.

No thanks to our government, BTW.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Mike Rapoport wrote:

Refining capacity for gasoline has increased 3X over the period while
no new refineries were built.

The question is: Is that kind of growth sustainable?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

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

HOLY CRAP!,
Martin it must be a very very strange day , a full moon coming up or
something...cause I agree with you! We need new refinieres! I think new
refineries could do the job cleaner, more efficant and more cost effective.
Did anyone else think it was funny to see the DemoRats whining because
the 5 min vote took longer? Strange how when they are running for election
"EVERY" vote should be counted....felons through illegals..all should count
(No matter how long it takes!). But when legislation is being voted on we
have to have a time limit and those elected officials "we the people" sent
there shouldn't have the opportunity to vote !
And for those who could not be there on time to vote....well if I showed
up at my job late..I would not have a job. Elected officials need to take
their jobs seriously..I don't think most do. Most know they have a free ride
and will always get re-elected no matter what. Until we change that we will
never change Washington.
MHO of course!

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech


"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
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

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

You make many good points, Roger, except this one. I keep reading (and
hearing) this statement over and over, from TV, radio and newspaper
commentators -- and everyone just blithely accepts it as "Truth" with a
capital "T".

Unfortunately, Europe -- supposedly home to some of the best minds in the
world -- has been subjected to gas prices two and three times what we are
currently paying, thanks to a generation of outrageous taxation. If your
statement were true, by now Europe should have developed many alternate
energy sources, rather than suffer gasoline priced at over $6.00 per gallon.

Where are they? What are they?

The frightening answer is: There aren't any -- even at $6.00 per gallon.
The only other alternative is that Europe simply doesn't possess the
scientific and industrial wherewithal to develop them -- which seems highly
unlikely.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Europe [...] has been subjected to gas prices two and three times what we are
currently paying, thanks to a generation of outrageous taxation. If your
statement were true, by now Europe should have developed many alternate
energy sources, rather than suffer gasoline priced at over $6.00 per gallon.

They conserve, by dint of not being huge. America has huge open spaces
to traverse. We live further from work than Europeans. The distance
from Iowa to New York is greater than the total size of entire
=countries= in Europe.

They don't need cheap fuel as much as America does.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.