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

Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2008-06-19, Jay Maynard wrote:
Yes, and? In our system, nobody is entitled to an opinion on whether someone
else needs something.

Yes, they are actually - it's the cornerstone of western democracy,
'free speech'. What they are not entitled to is that opinion being
listened to or heeded.


Well at least I can agree with you on that statement.

kontiki wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:

Below is a quote from comedian Bill Maher's HBO TV series Real Time
that aired March, 31, 2006:

So on this day, the 17th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil
spill, let us pause to consider how close we are to making
ourselves fossils from the fossil fuels we extract. In the next
twenty years, almost a billion Chinese people will be trading in
their bicycles for the automobile. Folks, we either get our ****
together on this quickly, or we're going to have to go to plan
'B': inventing a car that runs on Chinese people.

All you ever do is paste quotes from other sources... are even capable
of any original or creative thoughts of you own?

Speaking of gratuitous insults, just how old are you anyway?

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:32:06 -0400, kontiki
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:

Below is a quote from comedian Bill Maher's HBO TV series Real Time
that aired March, 31, 2006:

So on this day, the 17th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil
spill, let us pause to consider how close we are to making
ourselves fossils from the fossil fuels we extract. In the next
twenty years, almost a billion Chinese people will be trading in
their bicycles for the automobile. Folks, we either get our ****
together on this quickly, or we're going to have to go to plan
'B': inventing a car that runs on Chinese people.

All you ever do is paste quotes from other sources...

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. Personal opinions are
cheap, but researched and verified information is powerful. However,
I wouldn't expect someone with limited vision and the cognitive
capacity of a Neanderthal to grasp the concept of credibility. :-)

are even capable of any original or creative thoughts of you own?

Occasionally, when the situation warrants it. Your example of
creative grammar above certainly is inspiring. :-)

Larry Dighera wrote:


Occasionally, when the situation warrants it. Your example of
creative grammar above certainly is inspiring. :-)


Well I admit to being a rapid typist and my fingers often don't keep
up with my thoughts and I don't take the time to go back and correct
minor typos. I realize that it provides someone a means to divert the
focus from criticism of their statements to my typing.

"However,
I wouldn't expect someone with limited vision and the cognitive
capacity of a Neanderthal to grasp the concept of credibility. :-)"

Larry, I thought you said you never resorted to personal attacks, or is it
just due to the fact that he disagrees with your limited and narrow point of
view?

On 2008-06-19, kontiki wrote:

I'll ignore your ad-hominen attack.

Regardless of the the costs
(assuming all oil is 'expensive oil', as you like to say), what is
more obnoxious... sending massive amounts of US capital to foreign
oil suppoliers or keeping it here in the US... employing American
workers in American jobs in American companies?

Perhaps in a strategic sense it's best to use up all those filthy
foreigner's oil first, before using up your own? In any case, I don't
really see Canadians as being particularly evil (they are your biggest
single foreign supplier).

In any case, that's not what I was discussing; I was discussing the very
likely probability that exploiting all US oil resources would not bring
a return to the days of cheap oil like what we had back before 2002, and
they'd still be traded on the global market. The issue is that so long
as the Chinese and Indian economies keep expanding like they are doing,
turning on the US oil tap is not likely to change the long term trend in
price.

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

Dylan Smith wrote:

Perhaps in a strategic sense it's best to use up all those filthy
foreigner's oil first, before using up your own? In any case, I don't
really see Canadians as being particularly evil (they are your biggest
single foreign supplier).


We are bankrupting our nation... increasing the trade deficit,
devaluing the dollar, putting people out of work and making those
"filthy foreigners" (as you call them) fabulously rich in the process.
Does that sound like a good strategic plan to you? I doesn't to me.

In any case, that's not what I was discussing; I was discussing the very
likely probability that exploiting all US oil resources would not bring
a return to the days of cheap oil like what we had back before 2002, and
they'd still be traded on the global market. The issue is that so long
as the Chinese and Indian economies keep expanding like they are doing,
turning on the US oil tap is not likely to change the long term trend in
price.


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.

No one improves their situation without taking positive assertive
action and follow through. We should have started domestic exploration
and production several years ago and we wouldn't even be having this
discussion today. The anal argument (typical of Chuck Schumer, et. al)
is that we should drill for our own oil because ".. it would take 5
years to get it in production..) is such lame excuse to do nothing
and solve nothing. Typical of a politician.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 04:26:49 -0500, "Viperdoc"
wrote in
:

"However,
I wouldn't expect someone with limited vision and the cognitive
capacity of a Neanderthal to grasp the concept of credibility. :-)"

Larry, I thought you said you never resorted to personal attacks, or is it
just due to the fact that he disagrees with your limited and narrow point of
view?


Well, I must admit that I'm flattered to have the attention of a full
USAF Colonel taking time out of his personal European holiday to
comment on my contribution to this newsgroup. However, with all due
respect, I doubt that I'd use an absolute word like 'never' in that
context. Perhaps you can provide the Message-ID number of my article
in which you believe you read that.

Further, with all due respect, his questioning of my competence to
create original prose was not due to any disagreement; my followup
Bill Maher quote actually bolstered his unsupported assertion, so we
agree that China's demand for petroleum will continue to increase over
time.

I'm curious as to why you characterize my view as "limited and
narrow." Are you able to quote my specific language that leads you to
that opinion?

And what is your view on the subject of US dependence on foreign oil,
Wall Street's speculative run up in fuel prices, and the future of our
nation if it continues its nearly exclusive reliance on petroleum for
our energy needs? Do you have an opinion on this issue? Or do you
prefer to sit back, and play Let's You And Him Fight?*

Here's a thought for the military to reduce their dependence on
petroleum:
http://www.powerfilmsolar.com/produc...ents/index.htm

I'll bet you're clever enough to have figured out how to get your
tanks filled on the base, so you are unaffected by the rapid increase
in fuel prices. But we are soon going to be impacted by the increased
cost of getting goods to market, and the price inflation it will
cause. Unless we turn away from petroleum for our energy needs, the
threat will only grow.



* http://www.ericberne.com/games/games...play_LYAHF.htm

Larry Dighera wrote:

But we are soon going to be impacted by the increased
cost of getting goods to market, and the price inflation it will
cause. Unless we turn away from petroleum for our energy needs, the
threat will only grow.

".. we are soon going to be impacted by increased cost..."? We already
are now Larry, where have you been the last few months. People have lost
their jobs, businesses have failed.... If you are reading this newsgroup
I would *assume* you now that general aviation is suffering badly. I
know you haven't noticed, but we already have changed the way we live
our lives in many ways. Obviously you are unaffected by all this and
hence can afford to be so narrow minded.

The simple fact is that we will always need petroleum in one form or
another for many more years, albeit not in the same percentage of GDP
that we have had in the past.

You, and others like you seem to think that the United States can simply
'cold turkey' our way out of needing *any* petroleum, that is naive.
Petroleum is used in everything from fertilizers to life saving medical
supplies, not just fuel. While we are (and have) reduced out use of it
considerably, it will an important part of our economy for many years
to come and unless we put in place the means by which we can reliably
obtain it quickly we impacting our national security way of life.

Too bad people like you can't grasp this concept or we wouldn't be
wasting time, bandwidth, jobs or wealth arguing about a problem instead
of actually solving it.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:41:28 -0400, kontiki
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:

But we are soon going to be impacted by the increased
cost of getting goods to market, and the price inflation it will
cause. Unless we turn away from petroleum for our energy needs, the
threat will only grow.

".. we are soon going to be impacted by increased cost..."? We already
are now Larry, where have you been the last few months. People have lost
their jobs, businesses have failed.... If you are reading this newsgroup
I would *assume* you now that general aviation is suffering badly. I
know you haven't noticed, but we already have changed the way we live
our lives in many ways. Obviously you are unaffected by all this and
hence can afford to be so narrow minded.


What you mention is only the beginning. I expect the situation to
become markedly worse over time.

The simple fact is that we will always need petroleum in one form or
another for many more years, albeit not in the same percentage of GDP
that we have had in the past.

You, and others like you seem to think that the United States can simply
'cold turkey' our way out of needing *any* petroleum, that is naive.

It is also not what I'm suggesting.

Petroleum is used in everything from fertilizers to life saving medical
supplies, not just fuel. While we are (and have) reduced out use of it
considerably, it will an important part of our economy for many years
to come and unless we put in place the means by which we can reliably
obtain it quickly we impacting our national security way of life.

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.

Only those who lack the knowledge and information necessary to
accurately evaluate Bush's and McCain's arrogant opportunistic
proposals believe they are viable. I see them as a RNC smokescreen to
divert public outcry away from viable sustainable solutions toward
furthering the RNC agenda by taking advantage of opportunities public
outcry presents without regard for the consequences for others or the
good of our nation.


Too bad people like you can't grasp this concept or we wouldn't be
wasting time, bandwidth, jobs or wealth arguing about a problem instead
of actually solving it.


Actually, it's unfortunate that you believe what you have been feed by
Bush and McCain without doing the research to learn how your leaders
are betraying you and the American people. Perhaps you can PLEASE
provide some credible citations that support your view? Please do a
little research before you espouse arrogant RNC dogma.



http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/great-article-o.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/41379.html
McCain's call for offshore oil drilling won't bring relief soon

WASHINGTON — Opening America's coastal waters to oil drilling, as
John McCain urged in an address Tuesday, is unlikely to provide
Americans with more oil for at least seven to 10 years.

That's the estimate from the American Petroleum Institute, the oil
industry trade group. ...

The Interior Department offered a wide range of estimates of how
much oil might be within reach of U.S. offshore drilling in a 2006
report. It estimated that the Outer Continental Shelf could hold
115.4 billion barrels. However, it also estimated that recoverable
reserves off U.S. coasts in areas now banned from production
probably hold only about 19 billion barrels. ...

One thousand million barrels equals 1 billion, so if there are 19
billion barrels in the areas McCain would open to drilling, that's
enough to provide about 920 days, or about 2.5 years, of current
U.S. consumption. ...



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/
Study: ANWR oil would have little impact
Heavy reliance on foreign imports would continue, agency finds

WASHINGTON - Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development
would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and
would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according
to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.

The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or
EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from
Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin
flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.

But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United
States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as
opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off
the market. ...

James Kendell, one of the authors of the study, said the refuge
would add to domestic production, but “when you’re talking of a
world oil market of over 75 million barrels a day, adding 900,000
barrels by 2025 is a drop in the bucket.”




http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/op...=1&oref=slogin
This is worse than a dumb idea. It is cruelly misleading. It will
make only a modest difference, at best, to prices at the pump, and
even then the benefits will be years away. It greatly exaggerates
America’s leverage over world oil prices. It is based on dubious
statistics. It diverts the public from the tough decisions that
need to be made about conservation. ...

The Energy Information Administration says that even if both
coasts were opened, prices would not begin to drop until 2030. The
only real beneficiaries will be the oil companies that are trying
to lock up every last acre of public land before their friends in
power -- Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney -- exit the
political stage. ...

The whole scheme is based on a series of fictions that range from
the egregious to the merely annoying. Democratic majority leader,
Senator Harry Reid, noted the worst of these on Wednesday: That a
country that consumes one-quarter of the world’s oil supply but
owns only 3 percent of its reserves can drill its way out of any
problem — whether it be high prices at the pump or dependence on
oil exported by unstable countries in Persian Gulf. ...

A lesser fiction, perpetrated by the oil companies and, to some
extent, by misleading government figures, is that huge deposits of
oil and gas on federal land have been closed off and industry has
had one hand tied behind its back by environmentalists, Democrats
and the offshore protections in place for 25 years.

The numbers suggest otherwise. Of the 36 billion barrels of oil
believed to lie on federal land, mainly in the Rocky Mountain West
and Alaska, almost two-thirds are accessible or will be after
various land-use and environmental reviews. And of the 89 billion
barrels of recoverable oil believed to lie offshore, the federal
Mineral Management Service says fourth-fifths is open to industry,
mostly in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaskan waters.

Clearly, the oil companies are not starved for resources. Further,
they do not seem to be doing nearly as much as they could with the
land to which they’ve already laid claim. Separate studies by the
House Committee on Natural Resources and the Wilderness Society, a
conservation group, show that roughly three-quarters of the 90
million-plus acres of federal land being leased by the oil
companies onshore and off are not being used to produce energy.
That is 68 million acres altogether, among them potentially highly
productive leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.







Spencer wrote this morning that no-bid contracts for the major
Western oil companies to tap into Iraq's reserves represent the
real Bush Doctrine. It seems the creed isn't limited to foreign
policy.
http://www.washingtonindependent.com...-blood-for-oil