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

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:4Ta6k.214045$yE1.6603@attbi_s21:

Americans are a reactive bunch. If prices were to come back down,
those
SUVs would probably start flying out the door again. When prices
spiked back in '03, smaller cars became the top sellers in the U.S.,
but only for about 6 months. As soon as prices came back down, the
trucks and SUVs went
right back to the top of the shopping list.

That's because trucks and SUVs are more useful than itty-bitty cars.

Bottom line: SUVs can do all sorts of things that econocars cannot,
while SUVs can do everything that the econocar can do, better. With
one exception: Fuel consumption.

I think we'll see a short-term boom for small-car manufacturers, as
consumers shift to multiple vehicles, and use the ones that make the
most sense for the task at hand.


You are an idiot.


Bertie

On 2008-06-20, kontiki wrote:
Well that is all the more reason to start developing our own oil
as a part of an overall energy plan to make us less dependent on
foreign suppliers, boost the US economy, and put the world on notice
that the United States is not a bunch of impotent dildos paralyzed
by impotent politicians beholden to special interests, desperately
hoping things will get better.

Maybe so, and I think it's inevitable that there will be more oil
extraction in North America in general.

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. 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.

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.

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. The people rising
up as Jay suggests won't change this, unless it leads to a reduction in
world demand for oil.

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

Larry Dighera wrote:

The sources whose content I cite generally have a reputation for
presenting a balanced view, and I use them to bolster my arguments (or
to quantify yours in this case) in discussion.


You often copy and paste without understanding the material or even reading
it. Sometimes you've posted material which proved your position to be
incorrect.

Larry Dighera wrote:

There is no quick fix. To expect to see any affect on the price of
oil by permitting the unbridled construction of scores of unsightly
drilling platforms along our nation's scenic coastlines, or the
destructive exploration for oil in our nation's pristine national
parks is ridiculous; the effects won't be seen for many years, and
they will never significantly reduce oil prices.


How far offshore would these drilling platforms be? What pristine national
parks are sought for oil exploration?

Opening new areas for drilling would have an effect on prices long before
any product from them reached consumers. Speculators are driving up the
price of oil by betting that demand in the future will be high and supply
will be low. If something happened that would affect future supply or
demand they would revise their bets.

Steven P. McNicoll schrieb:
If something happened that would affect future supply or
demand they would revise their bets.

ah, same as they did in April?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24114460/

#m

Martin Hotze wrote:

ah, same as they did in April?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24114460/


No, something real. You should have read it before posting.

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:38:18 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:

The sources whose content I cite generally have a reputation for
presenting a balanced view, and I use them to bolster my arguments (or
to quantify yours in this case) in discussion.


You often copy and paste without understanding the material or even reading
it. Sometimes you've posted material which proved your position to be
incorrect.


Given the volume of my posts, errors are inevitable. Your use of the
word 'often' is hyperbole, and from such a pedant too.



--

"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
--George W. Bush, Trenton, NJ Sept 2002.


"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
--Vice President Cheney

Steven P. McNicoll schrieb:
Martin Hotze wrote:
ah, same as they did in April?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24114460/


No, something real. You should have read it before posting.

I read it (and I searched for an english written article), it made the
news here, too.
And BTW they found more last year, this also had minimal to no effect on
worldwide speculation.

#m

Martin Hotze wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll schrieb:
Martin Hotze wrote:
ah, same as they did in April?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24114460/


No, something real. You should have read it before posting.


I read it (and I searched for an english written article), it made the
news here, too.
And BTW they found more last year, this also had minimal to no effect
on worldwide speculation.


You should have understood it before posting.

Steven P. McNicoll schrieb:

You should have understood it before posting.

*bah*

#m