Bush said "America is addicted to oil!"

[[email protected]]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> Maybe I worded that ambiguously, but the fact remains that doubling
> our crude oil input wouldn't increase our creation of finished
> petroleum products to the end user (as evidenced by the refinery
> shutdowns due to the recent gulf hurricanes). To keep from having
> supply-related spikes to the consumer, you have to have enough
> capacity of crude AND refinery capacity. Shut down more than a few
> percent of either and the end result will be the same (to the
> consumer, that is...).

There are reasons why oil companies aren't
building new refineries, and lack of cash
aint one of em.

R

 

[Sorni]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "landotter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> But in the case of the energy proposals, if you actually read/watched
>> the news, as your ilk are not want to do, you'll see that he slashed
>> funding for alternative energy research two days after he
>> spoke--specifically cutting funding for biomass--the exact science he
>> so enthusiastically endorsed during his SOTU address.
>
> Wanna explain to us all how the POTUS "slashes funding" for a program?

Because it said so in a BLOG, silly!

> Last time I checked, that wasn't in his job description, unless he
> does so via his veto power (which he obviously hasn't). Perhaps you
> have him confused with the hundreds of congrescritters crawling around
> DC?

But landrat doesn't hate /them/...

 

[[email protected]]

Gooserider wrote:

> The next step is for governments to control every aspect. Own the wells, own
> the tankers.

I wonder how many thousands of men it takes
to guard a pipeline.

Robert

 

[landotter]

Sorni wrote:

> You're sounding more "moderate" all the time! LOL

Yes I am, and you're failing to provide any meaningful dialog for the
fifth time. Is it because you're simply incapable of reason, or are you
a **** tease?

I'm pro war in Afghanistan, pro gun, pro gay rights, pro choice, pro
religious freedom, pro business, pro humanitarian intervention, pro
living wage, pro nationalized health care.

That doesn't really back me into any corner into particular, making me
pretty hard to shoot for a man whose sole weapon is the accusation of
being something other than a cookie cutter conservative.

But, as a matter fact, most of those things that I believe in are very
conservative, especially being for national health care. I doubt you've
read any history, or comprehended it--but the drive for national health
care in Europe was driven by big business realizing that healthy
workers increased their bottom line.

Conservative comes from the word "conserve" which means to save or to
hold back, to spend and govern with caution and with your finger on the
pulse of history. It does not mean that one should embrace radical
ideology like the neoconservatives who frame our national policy, it
does not mean government that only represents a minority of the
population, it does not mean wasting money on war when diplomacy while
cutting taxes, putting a country deeply and dangerously into debt with
the false promise of starving government "so you can drown it in a
bathtub" while doing no such thing, instead growing government at the
largest rate in history--that's radical, not conservative.

 

[Sorni]

landotter wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>
>> You're sounding more "moderate" all the time! LOL
>
> Yes I am, and you're failing to provide any meaningful dialog for the
> fifth time. Is it because you're simply incapable of reason, or are
> you a **** tease?
>
> I'm pro war in Afghanistan, pro gun, pro gay rights, pro choice, pro
> religious freedom, pro business, pro humanitarian intervention, pro
> living wage, pro nationalized health care.
>
> That doesn't really back me into any corner into particular, making
> me pretty hard to shoot for a man whose sole weapon is the accusation
> of being something other than a cookie cutter conservative.
>
> But, as a matter fact, most of those things that I believe in are very
> conservative, especially being for national health care. I doubt
> you've read any history, or comprehended it--but the drive for
> national health care in Europe was driven by big business realizing
> that healthy workers increased their bottom line.
>
> Conservative comes from the word "conserve" which means to save or to
> hold back, to spend and govern with caution and with your finger on
> the pulse of history. It does not mean that one should embrace radical
> ideology like the neoconservatives who frame our national policy, it
> does not mean government that only represents a minority of the
> population, it does not mean wasting money on war when diplomacy while
> cutting taxes, putting a country deeply and dangerously into debt with
> the false promise of starving government "so you can drown it in a
> bathtub" while doing no such thing, instead growing government at the
> largest rate in history--that's radical, not conservative.

God you love listening to yourself. (SOMEONE has to! LOL)

 

[di]

"landotter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Sorni wrote:
>
>> You're sounding more "moderate" all the time! LOL
>
> Yes I am, and you're failing to provide any meaningful dialog for the
> fifth time. Is it because you're simply incapable of reason, or are you
> a **** tease?
>
> I'm pro war in Afghanistan, pro gun, pro gay rights, pro choice, pro
> religious freedom, pro business, pro humanitarian intervention, pro
> living wage, pro nationalized health care.


Pro ********?

 

[Sorni]

RedCloud (AKA "Pungent ****") got us again.

Oh, the Usenetity... BS

 

[[email protected]]

Sorni wrote:
>
> God you love listening to yourself. (SOMEONE has to! LOL)

FWIW, I agree with landotter on some points. I disagree with him on
other points. But like him, I don't fit into the simplistic, neat
classifications that various demagogues demand.


Having said that, it should be clear to any observer that landotter's
posts are much more intelligent and rational than Sorni's and di's
typical content-free sniping. I certainly hope Sorni and di don't
think they're being persuasive!


- Frank Krygowski

 

[di]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Sorni wrote:
>>
>> God you love listening to yourself. (SOMEONE has to! LOL)
>
> FWIW, I agree with landotter on some points. I disagree with him on
> other points. But like him, I don't fit into the simplistic, neat
> classifications that various demagogues demand.
>
>
> Having said that, it should be clear to any observer that landotter's
> posts are much more intelligent and rational than Sorni's and di's
> typical content-free sniping. I certainly hope Sorni and di don't
> think they're being persuasive!
>
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

Now that hurts, who would want to persuade you of anything?

 

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>>
>> God you love listening to yourself. (SOMEONE has to! LOL)
>
> FWIW, I agree with landotter on some points. I disagree with him on
> other points. But like him, I don't fit into the simplistic, neat
> classifications that various demagogues demand.
>
>
> Having said that, it should be clear to any observer that landotter's
> posts are much more intelligent and rational than Sorni's and di's
> typical content-free sniping. I certainly hope Sorni and di don't
> think they're being persuasive!

Gee, I'm crushed.

I guess I should just call people (in this case the prez) a lying asshat and
say they (he) deserves the electric chair -- just two of the landrat's more
/moderate/ comments -- to qualify as "intelligent and rational" in your
book, Frank. (Others can just read the thread.)

Do you notice how I'm the only one the terravermin has addressed in these
exchanges? He didn't directly answer Bob or Mark, for example; why do you
think that is? (Hint: it's personal with him, apparently -- OR he's just
afraid to engage those guys.)

Me? I'm going riding...

Bill

 

[Stephen Harding]

[email protected] wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>
>>Maybe I worded that ambiguously, but the fact remains that doubling
>>our crude oil input wouldn't increase our creation of finished
>>petroleum products to the end user (as evidenced by the refinery
>>shutdowns due to the recent gulf hurricanes). To keep from having
>>supply-related spikes to the consumer, you have to have enough
>>capacity of crude AND refinery capacity. Shut down more than a few
>>percent of either and the end result will be the same (to the
>>consumer, that is...).
>
>
> There are reasons why oil companies aren't
> building new refineries, and lack of cash
> aint one of em.

Lawyers from everyone's neighborhood is probably the primary reason.

It ain't easy to build a refinery *anywhere* in the US, just as it
ain't easy to drill for new oil *anywhere* in the US.

Had ExxonMobil more refinery capacity, they'd have made a lot more
money on top of their record breaking performance of last quarter.


SMH

 

[[email protected]]

Stephen Harding wrote:

> It ain't easy to build a refinery *anywhere* in the US, just as it
> ain't easy to drill for new oil *anywhere* in the US.

There is no 'new oil' anywhere in the US, so
drilling for it would be pretty silly.

> Had ExxonMobil more refinery capacity, they'd have made a lot more
> money on top of their record breaking performance of last quarter.

Really? Got any kind of support for that or
are you just throwing it out.

Robert

 

[di]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Stephen Harding wrote:
>
>> It ain't easy to build a refinery *anywhere* in the US, just as it
>> ain't easy to drill for new oil *anywhere* in the US.
>
> There is no 'new oil' anywhere in the US, so
> drilling for it would be pretty silly.
>

Then why is the drilling activity at an all time high right now.

 

[The Wogster]

Sorni wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Sorni wrote:
>>
>>>God you love listening to yourself. (SOMEONE has to! LOL)
>>
>>FWIW, I agree with landotter on some points. I disagree with him on
>>other points. But like him, I don't fit into the simplistic, neat
>>classifications that various demagogues demand.
>>
>>
>>Having said that, it should be clear to any observer that landotter's
>>posts are much more intelligent and rational than Sorni's and di's
>>typical content-free sniping. I certainly hope Sorni and di don't
>>think they're being persuasive!
>
>
> Gee, I'm crushed.
>
> I guess I should just call people (in this case the prez) a lying asshat and
> say they (he) deserves the electric chair -- just two of the landrat's more
> /moderate/ comments -- to qualify as "intelligent and rational" in your
> book, Frank. (Others can just read the thread.)


What the heck is an asshat, a helmet for your butt? Seems like a good
solution for the saddle problem in another thread....

Now with US politics there are no liberal or conservative parties, you
have essentially two centerest parties, one called the Republicans and
one called the Democrats, and they seem to try to outdo each other,
trying to see how liberal and conservative they can be at the same time.

W

 

[The Wogster]

Peter Cole wrote:
>
> Correlation does not prove causality. In any case, Detroit didn't "stop"
> innovating in the 60's, they hadn't done much innovation in the
> preceding decades. The US auto industry was/is very conservative --
> conservative institutions (or individuals) don't handle change well (by
> definition).

I worked for a company that sub-contracted to one of the big three,
doing computer work. One of the reports printed was the window summary
for the car, it's a big, complex report (it's actually about 2 inches
wider, then what you see, the remainder has the dealer pricing. It
prints one page for each car, in 1983 I suggested that instead of
printing this rather volumous report on impact ( band ) printers, which
meant having a printer and operator dedicated to this task, they use the
laser printer, which is about 10 times faster, and sitting idle for
about 3 hours a day. In 1992 I bought a car from this company, they
were still printing it on the band printer, although they did change it,
a couple of years later. Gee, it took them 11 years to put this
suggestion in place!

The big three are dinosaurs, if you lop off their tail, it takes so long
for the pain message to get to the brain, that they bleed to death first.

W

 

[The Wogster]

[email protected] wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>
>>Maybe I worded that ambiguously, but the fact remains that doubling
>>our crude oil input wouldn't increase our creation of finished
>>petroleum products to the end user (as evidenced by the refinery
>>shutdowns due to the recent gulf hurricanes). To keep from having
>>supply-related spikes to the consumer, you have to have enough
>>capacity of crude AND refinery capacity. Shut down more than a few
>>percent of either and the end result will be the same (to the
>>consumer, that is...).
>
>
> There are reasons why oil companies aren't
> building new refineries, and lack of cash
> aint one of em.
>

They probably know that it's a futile activity, it takes a lot to build
a refinery, first you need money, and lots of it, a new refinery now
would cost in excess of $1 Billion. Oil is toxic, so you need permits
galore, and you probably need to escrow cleanup funds, for when you
decommission the refinery -- or go broke. Like nuclear plants, it can
take 10 years just to deal with the permits and regulations. You need
to acquire a site, NIMBY anyone? The government then requires you to
depreciate the refinery over the estimated life of the plant.
Considering that many existing refineries were built in the 1950's and
1960's if not earlier, it's not unreasonable for a depreciation period
of 50 years. So your investing money today, that you will not be able
to recoup until 2066.

They have enough capacity for now, and if the peak oil folks are right,
they will not need much new capacity in the future. So it's more
economical to keep patching up existing refineries.

W

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> Maybe I worded that ambiguously, but the fact remains that doubling
>> our crude oil input wouldn't increase our creation of finished
>> petroleum products to the end user (as evidenced by the refinery
>> shutdowns due to the recent gulf hurricanes). To keep from having
>> supply-related spikes to the consumer, you have to have enough
>> capacity of crude AND refinery capacity. Shut down more than a few
>> percent of either and the end result will be the same (to the
>> consumer, that is...).
>
>There are reasons why oil companies aren't
>building new refineries, and lack of cash
>aint one of em.

FWIW, when you read about GWB's tax breaks for oil companies, they
specifically target the cost of increasing refinery production
capacity. And that will tend to LOWER the cost of petroleum products
to consumers (since it's pretty much entirely refinery-related supply
and demand that has been driving the retail price).

Also the current administration has tried to simplify the nearly
impossible governmental hurdles to building new refineries (and nukes,
BTW)... both "good things" IMHO, though obviously no one wants one of
the things (either of 'em) in their back yard.

And yes - I DO believe that the RIGHT answer is NOT using so much oil,
in case anyone was wondering.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[[email protected]]

di wrote:

> Then why is the drilling activity at an all time high right now.

You mean more previously off-limits
areas are being screwed up by drilling
than ever before.

As for actual oil production, domestic
production has been declining every year
since 1970. It's been almost 30 years
since any significant deposits were
discovered anywhere, let alone the
US.

Robert

 

[Mark Hickey]

Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:

>> The Corvair itself isn't what would have done it - it would have been
>> only the first step (like the Beetle was for VW and Porsche). Think
>> what the next generation of Corvair might have been - and what the
>> other automakers might have come out with to compete against it.
>
>Following the VW/Porsche model (air-cooled, rear engine) with more cars
>after the Corvair would have only taken the US car makers further down
>the wrong path. History has shown that the winning formula is
>water-cooled FWD, at least with current materials and specs.

Something that VW was way ahead on because of their experience with
rear-engine cars. Pretty much the same thing, with steering.

> VW
>abandoned both rear engine and air-cooling a very long time ago, and
>Porsche finally got rid of air-cooling, but still clings to rear engine
>in its 911 derivatives, but that's about it.

Like I said, it's not just the air-cooled rear-engine configuration -
but the sporty, light, efficient car that was killed. It was a flawed
car in a lot of ways, but it was the first step in what could have
been a very different direction for Detroit.

>You can (obviously) make rear engine work, but it has a host of
>drawbacks, which is why it hasn't been mainstream ever, and has been
>steadily fading even among the diehards. One of the most severe
>drawbacks is the handling quirks it introduces, something the Corvair
>was justly criticized for.

It was "different", but it would outhandle most of the cars of the day
easily (which isn't saying much). The "rollover problem" that Nader
used to demonize the car was blown way out of proportion, and was
fixed by the time his book came out.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Gooserider]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Gooserider wrote:
>
>> The next step is for governments to control every aspect. Own the wells,
>> own
>> the tankers.
>
> I wonder how many thousands of men it takes
> to guard a pipeline.
>
> Robert

Evidently more than we're using in Iraq. Pipelines there blow up all the
time.