PHIL BOYER: 40% OF AOPA MEMBERS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASING THEIR FLYING DUE TO FUEL PRICES

On 2008-06-22, Dylan Smith wrote:
However, that's not what I was trying to discuss (save the flippant
remark about using everyone else's first) - Jay thinks that exploiting
all North American oil is the silver bullet to the current rise in oil
prices.

I didn't say that, and I don't believe it. I know that that alone won't
bring oil prices down to $50 a barrel. OTOH, it cannot help but lower
prices, and that's something we all need. Not to exploit oil resources that
we already have is simply criminal.

However, most North American oil that's not already being
exploited is what's euphemistically called 'unconventional sources' -
i.e. there might be a lot of it, but it's poor quality and expensive to
extract - and importantly the RATE at which you can extract it and turn
it into something useful is a fraction of the rate at which you can
turn, say, West Texas sweet crude into something useful.

Don't be so sure. That's not true of both the Alaskan and North Dakota
fields, for example.

If the US was extracting all it's oil, then no, we probably wouldn't be
having this discussion today.
We'd be having it this time next year, or perhaps the year after.

This is the same the-sky-is-falling rhetoric that enviro-wackos have been
spouting for years.

It simply won't make a big enough dent in global demand to bring a
return to the days of cheap oil and $1.25/gal mogas.

I never said it would, and I don't believe it.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:50:22 GMT, Jay Maynard
wrote in
:

On 2008-06-22, Dylan Smith wrote:
However, that's not what I was trying to discuss (save the flippant
remark about using everyone else's first) - Jay thinks that exploiting
all North American oil is the silver bullet to the current rise in oil
prices.

I didn't say that, and I don't believe it. I know that that alone won't
bring oil prices down to $50 a barrel.

You will NEVER see US$50/barrel again. The ever increasing world
demand, investor speculation in a limited commodity, and the plunging
value of the US dollar will prevent it.

OTOH, it cannot help but lower prices,

When might a reasonable person expect the domestic oil produced to
have any significant downward impact on fuel prices in the US, in your
opinion?

and that's something we all need. Not to exploit oil resources that
we already have is simply criminal.

It is even more criminal for our nation's leaders to fail to fund
massive renewable energy technology research, so that we may throw off
the oppressive yoke of petroleum dependence once and for all.


However, most North American oil that's not already being
exploited is what's euphemistically called 'unconventional sources' -
i.e. there might be a lot of it, but it's poor quality and expensive to
extract - and importantly the RATE at which you can extract it and turn
it into something useful is a fraction of the rate at which you can
turn, say, West Texas sweet crude into something useful.

Don't be so sure. That's not true of both the Alaskan and North Dakota
fields, for example.

If the US was extracting all it's oil, then no, we probably wouldn't be
having this discussion today.
We'd be having it this time next year, or perhaps the year after.

And if the US was extracting all it's oil, we'd be having this
discussion a year or two after that.

This is the same the-sky-is-falling rhetoric that enviro-wackos have been
spouting for years.

And because nobody listened, look what happened.


It simply won't make a big enough dent in global demand to bring a
return to the days of cheap oil and $1.25/gal mogas.

I never said it would, and I don't believe it [will].

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 06:45:14 -0700 (PDT), Skylune
wrote in
:

But, that would not allow for the requisite Bush bashing.

I'm happy to see that you find Bush bashing required, if too late.

Skylune wrote in news:6a371136-db64-4cf5-a5a0-
:



Just damn. Does this mean that you will sell/abandon your fuel
guzzling airplane, and take the bus instead? The irony of private
pleasure pilots bemoaning high avgas prices while simultaneously
attacking Bush/Cheney as whackos who would take steps to increase
crude supply is fantastic!



Huh?


I think Bush and Cheney are idiots because they are. I'd also like gas to
be 25 cents a gallon, but it's not an either/or deal...



Bertie

Martin Hotze wrote:
schrieb:
Martin Hotze wrote:
schrieb:

OPEC simply increases production.

what are your guesses? double production cuts prices in half?

The price of a product and the supply are not related in a linear
fashion.

I know.

The price of a product is whatever people are willing to pay for it.

I know. And your assumption that a higher production will lower the
price is not a given fact. Demand rises, so you have to produce more
than requested.

True enough, and given that the majority of the supply is controlled
by a group that throttles the supply to keep the price high, it is
doubtfull prices will drop much unless there is new production not
controlled by that group in spite of the recent Saudi announcement
that they are increasing supply.

Indonesia has left OPEC, new fields have been discovered in Brasil,
Mexico has huge untapped fields but Mexican "culture", for want of a
better word, currently keeps those from being utilized, Russia has
huge fields they can't currently get at because they don't have the
technology, Africa has huge amounts of oil but is so unstable no one
will go there, the US and Canada have huge amounts of oil and tar
sands but the enviros won't let those be developed, ad nauseum.

Oil supplies available on the market are mostly a political problem.

let's assume (for the sake of calculation) that world oil supplies last
right now for 200 years (500?). If you double production then this will
also be cut in half to 100 years (250, then) remaining. and then?

The total quantity of the world's oil supplies and how long they will
last has nothing to do with the current price.

I know. Still: lower fuel prices won't help you solve this problem - au
contraire.

See above; there is lots of oil out there.

The technology to synthesize petroleum products is nearly a century old.

It just costs too much compared to pumping it out of the ground.

Once the stuff in the ground is gone, we just start synthesizing it.

Yeah, the price may go up, but one would hope that in the span of
hundreds of years, the technology would improve some.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:35:03 GMT, wrote in
:

Once the stuff in the ground is gone, we just start synthesizing it.

Why not start growing Jojoba now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodies...omic_arguments

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:35:03 GMT, wrote in
:

Once the stuff in the ground is gone, we just start synthesizing it.

Why not start growing Jojoba now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodies...omic_arguments

Nothing is stopping you from going for it if you really believe you
will get a return on your money.

Let us know how it works out for you.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On 2008-06-23, wrote:
See above; there is lots of oil out there.

It's not just the quantity: it's the quality and the *rate* at which you
can turn it into something useful. The Canadians *are* exploiting the
tar sands, but it's poor quality and the *rate* at which they can
turn it into something useful is quite slow, despite the quantity.

This becomes a problem when the *rate* of consumption goes ever upwards
- if the *rate* of extraction can't keep up, prices go up.

As for the Saudis, the extra oil they can pump is also lower quality
oil, where the rate you can turn it into something useful is much lower.

It just costs too much compared to pumping it out of the ground.
Once the stuff in the ground is gone, we just start synthesizing it.

But it'll be at a much lower rate (regardless of the absolute quantity)
than the cheap and easy light crude.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2008-06-23, wrote:
See above; there is lots of oil out there.

It's not just the quantity: it's the quality and the *rate* at which you
can turn it into something useful. The Canadians *are* exploiting the
tar sands, but it's poor quality and the *rate* at which they can
turn it into something useful is quite slow, despite the quantity.

This becomes a problem when the *rate* of consumption goes ever upwards
- if the *rate* of extraction can't keep up, prices go up.

As for the Saudis, the extra oil they can pump is also lower quality
oil, where the rate you can turn it into something useful is much lower.

It just costs too much compared to pumping it out of the ground.
Once the stuff in the ground is gone, we just start synthesizing it.

But it'll be at a much lower rate (regardless of the absolute quantity)
than the cheap and easy light crude.

I said "Once the stuff in the ground is gone...".

Where do you get cheap and easy light crude "Once the stuff in the ground
is gone"?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Dylan Smith wrote:

It's not just the quantity: it's the quality and the *rate* at which you
can turn it into something useful.

Then applying that logic to ethanol would make one wonder why we even
bother trying to turn corn into fuel. We increase food prices, produce
food shortages and end up with a product that takes as much energy to
produce as it provides as a fuel.

The reasonr is stupidity... lack of leadership and blind belief in the
'hope' promised by so called 'leaders' of a religious movement.

Very much like Adolph Hitler and the late 1930's in Germany. Combine
stupidity with religious zeal for an ideal and there you have it.

The Canadians *are* exploiting the
tar sands, but it's poor quality and the *rate* at which they can
turn it into something useful is quite slow, despite the quantity.


Again, see my statement about ethanol.

This becomes a problem when the *rate* of consumption goes ever upwards
- if the *rate* of extraction can't keep up, prices go up.


Duh... we are a growing economy... unless you prefer recession. Or...
how about depression? That you fulfill the desires of the elite.

As for the Saudis, the extra oil they can pump is also lower quality
oil, where the rate you can turn it into something useful is much lower.


Uhhh please cite some credentials you might have regarding your ability
to judge the worls various supplies of crude oil regarding 'quality'.
Thank You.... I'll hold my breath while I wait.

It just costs too much compared to pumping it out of the ground.
Once the stuff in the ground is gone, we just start synthesizing it.

But it'll be at a much lower rate (regardless of the absolute quantity)
than the cheap and easy light crude.


Lord have mercy on us. We are led by idiots.