Divorce Your Car --and get into a relationship with a Bike!

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 09:22:38 -0700, Bill Funk
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 23:49:03 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , R Brickston wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:22:03 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , R Brickston wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:23:34 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:
snip


Not allowed to get any oil sitting there for the taking right on our
Atlantic shelf. The environmentalists won't allow it.

The oil companies rather have everyone pay $75 for their $5 a bbl oil.

Just where are the oil companies getting this "$5 a bbl oil" from?

Saudi Arabia. How do you think they are making record profits if they
were just passing 'costs' on? If they were just passing increased costs
on, then their profits would be more or less flat. The profits reach
records because their cost for the oil has remained more or less the
same while the market price for the oil has increased.

Surely, you jest. You actually believe that /any/ oil company is
buying a barrel of Saudi crude for just $5?

That's the extraction cost.

Why would the Saudi's be taking just $5 for their oil?

They aren't getting $75 a barrel for it. There are generally contracts
and royalties that outline what the governments get.

Got news for you: Aramco was nationalized in 1974. The oil production
is all controlled by the Saudi's. They receive /no/ royalties. They
get /all/ of the barrel price for their crude.

Um read the article I cited. The oil fields are controlled by
nationalized companies, but they get royalties for the oil.

"Nationalized" companies are owned by the government. That's what
nationalized means. Yes, the companies get income from the oil they
produce, but since the company is owned by the government, it's the
government that gets that income..

And while he's at it he can look at a chart of Saudi Arabia's revenue
per each $1 increase of the price per barrel.

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:15:36 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 04:28:44 +0000, R Brickston wrote:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:40:49 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
wrote:

It's amazing the power that these "environmentalists" hold. I'm confused,
though. I thought the Republican Party had both houses of the U.S.
Congress, along with the White House. In addition, they hold most
governorships and many state legislatures. How and where is it that these
evil "environmentalists" hold so much power? Or are the Republicans
"environmentalists"?

Where would the U.S. Congress have something to do with a state
running it's own business, such as granting the placement of refinery?

State legislatures and governors would, as would, one assumes, the EPA.
Certainly things like Alaska's north shore oil has been a federal, not
state, issue. But, you then seem to assume that those evil
environmentalists have great power over state legislatures, and governors.
Which states would those be? Texas? They haven't built any refineries in
Texas in a long time. There is more refining capacity in New Jersey and
Pennsylvania, which are traditional "blue" states.

Despite Michael Crichton's novels, environmentalists just don't have that
kind of clout.

109th U.S. Congress (2005-2006)
H.R. 5254: Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act
Introduced: May 2, 2006
Sponsor: Rep. Charles Bass [R-NH]

New refineries are not being built due, in part, to a permitting
process that is overly cumbersome and capital intensive. Refiners are
subject to significant environmental and other regulations and face
several new Clean Air Act requirements over the next decade. New Clean
Air Act requirements will benefit the environment but will also
require substantial capital investment and additional government
permits. There is currently a lack of coordination in permitting
requirements and other regulations affecting refineries at federal,
state, and local levels. There is no consistent national permitting
program for refineries, compared with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission’s (FERC) lead agency role over interstate natural gas
pipelines, liquefied natural gas, and hydroelectric power and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s role over nuclear plants. More
regulatory certainty and coordination is needed for refinery owners to
stimulate investment in increased refinery capacity.

http://tinyurl.com/nodb6

Status: 99% of Republicans supporting, 92% of Democrats opposing.

Remember: More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than have died in
United States Commercial Nuclear Power plant operations.

Matthew Russotto wrote:

The highlight for 2001:

Passenger car : 3557 BTU/passenger mile
Transit motor bus: 3698 BTU/passenger mile

And I doubt that takes into account the fact that taking a car is
almost always more direct than taking a bus.

It is unclear to me how passenger miles is determined for transit motor
bus. It must be some guesstimate, and my bet would be that it is
intended to make transit look better than it actually is. Further, there
are other circumstances that make transit even worse environmentally.

For example, here in Chapel Hill, NC, the transit busses are "free."
Consequently, many passenger trips are would-be walkers or bicyclists
who board for a couple of blocks (literally) rather than walk or ride,
thus inflating ridership/passenger miles. When the busses became free
several years ago, walking and bicycling dropped dramatically. Former
non-polluting travelers became part of the motorized system. Also, since
it is free, it is certain that discretionary passenger trips have
increased.

Even for systems that are not free, short haul transit reduces the
number of walking and bicycling trips.

Wayne

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"R Brickston" rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 14:01:14 -0700, "Baxter"
wrote:

Even the Terminator doesn't agree with Shrub.


It figures that you would pick an action movie actor as your
"guidance."

And next you'll tell us you despised Regan? (damn unlikely!)

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:18:34 -0400, (RJ) wrote:

william welner wrote:

There are many neighborhoods for example such as Carol Gardens in Brooklyn
that have attached one family houses with backyards with .lots of space

Attached, as in sharing walls with my neighbors? No thanks.

A townhouse backyard with lots of space? Is it a half mile long?

I live in an attached one family house in New York City. I commute by
bke 30 miles roundtrip on most days, but I can also take the bus and
train. My yard is 18 feet wide by 50 feet long, big enough for me, the
tomato plants, string beans, my S.O., two cats, and the neighborhood
opossum. Would I like a big woods with a lake? Sure, but then I
wouldn't be near the nifty stuff in Manhattan. Like all things in
life, it's a tradeoff and we decide what is important to us.

The basic premise of the OP is likely correct; we will need to cut
down on oil use and better mass transit combined with planned
communities seems a smart way to go. Many folks in NY don't have or
need cars. I still do because you just can't take a longboard to the
beach on a bus, but I'm getting a much more efficient one in a month
or so.

In article , David L. Johnson wrote:

Not really. It's one thing to say that, for example, there is a huge
amount of oil in oil shale. There certainly is. But it just doesn't
matter what the price of oil is, as long as it takes more _energy_ to
extract the oil from the shale than the extracted oil will provide, oil
shale will not be viable as a source of energy.

I am not talking about oil shale. why the f does every time I bring up
proven reserves with existing technology to extract, heavier oil and oil
sands is the freaking oil shale brought up?

And even if oil shale, technology can improve in energy consumption.

Gold ore feasibility as a function of the dollar cost of extraction
clearly makes sense; as the price of gold goes up, there is more incentive
to extract it. But since it now takes over a barrel of oil to provide the
energy needed to extract a barrel of oil from shale, it can't be
viable no matter what the price.

I am not discussing oil shale. But let's say that's all there is, the
friggin oil shale let's say it's the year 2400 and we've run down the oil
sands, the heavy oil, and the light crude was all gone a centuries
before. Oil is still needed for plastics and fuel and whatever...
doubtful, but let's roll with it. And even in the year 2400 it takes more
energy to get oil out of the shale than there is in the oil. Guess what?
If there is a demand for the oil and the price is high enough, someone is
going to put together a nuclear or maybe naquida powered shale cracker to
get that oil.

In article , Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 23:49:03 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , R Brickston wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:22:03 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , R Brickston wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:23:34 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:
snip


Not allowed to get any oil sitting there for the taking right on our
Atlantic shelf. The environmentalists won't allow it.

The oil companies rather have everyone pay $75 for their $5 a bbl oil.

Just where are the oil companies getting this "$5 a bbl oil" from?

Saudi Arabia. How do you think they are making record profits if they
were just passing 'costs' on? If they were just passing increased costs
on, then their profits would be more or less flat. The profits reach
records because their cost for the oil has remained more or less the
same while the market price for the oil has increased.

Surely, you jest. You actually believe that /any/ oil company is
buying a barrel of Saudi crude for just $5?

That's the extraction cost.

Why would the Saudi's be taking just $5 for their oil?

They aren't getting $75 a barrel for it. There are generally contracts
and royalties that outline what the governments get.

Got news for you: Aramco was nationalized in 1974. The oil production
is all controlled by the Saudi's. They receive /no/ royalties. They
get /all/ of the barrel price for their crude.

Um read the article I cited. The oil fields are controlled by
nationalized companies, but they get royalties for the oil.

"Nationalized" companies are owned by the government. That's what
nationalized means. Yes, the companies get income from the oil they
produce, but since the company is owned by the government, it's the
government that gets that income..

THat's what what I wrote several times, the government of the nation gets
the income from the royalities. (via the nationalized oil companies in
most cases)

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 02:02:09 GMT, R Brickston
rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ wrote:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:34:18 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , R Brickston wrote:

The subject is the Bush conspiracy to invade Iraq for the oil or some
such nonsense.

That's nice. I posted what I posted, don't like it, don't reply or kill
file me.

Unless the latest twist is to claim Bush is after world
oil production, what is germane is what is imported to the US and
Norway is nowhere near the top three imports to this country. For
example we imported in '05, 119,000 bpd from Norway; Mexico
1,550,000; Canada 1,643,000; Nigeria 1,060,000; Venezuala 1,231,000.

Blah blah blah... I see you now choose to side step and go some other
direction.

Oh, my... are the facts getting in your way?


Nothing is done in the US government unless money and/or power are
behind it. follow the money.

Yet another conspiracy troll. Get a clue.

Keep rooting for your 'team'. Keep that D and R dynamic going. Keep
calling any critical thinking wacky conspiracies so you don't have to
think. Cheer for your team, be a D, be an R, anyone who's not is a kook!

You want to produce "critical thinking" then put it forth in a factual
and logical manner. So far you have produced only inane theories
without any source or facts to collaborate them. Major US oils
companies buying Saudi crude at $5 a bbl? Go ahead and start by
backing that fairy tale up. Kook indeed.


Project for a New American Century. Not WMD, not 9/11, not "freeing
the Iraqi People". World control is what it is about. Of course,
they're pretty inept so we ended up handing Iraq to the Committee For
The Islamic Revolution In Iraq. Great victory for America. But that
wasn't the Plan. The Plan was to turn Iraq over to Rumsfeld's friend
Chalabi. You know about him? The guy giving Judith Miller the scoop on
the WMDs? Here, a little reminder of our friend:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072806Z.shtml

In article , R Brickston wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 09:22:38 -0700, Bill Funk
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 23:49:03 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , R Brickston wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:22:03 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , R Brickston wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:23:34 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:
snip


Not allowed to get any oil sitting there for the taking right on our
Atlantic shelf. The environmentalists won't allow it.

The oil companies rather have everyone pay $75 for their $5 a bbl oil.

Just where are the oil companies getting this "$5 a bbl oil" from?

Saudi Arabia. How do you think they are making record profits if they
were just passing 'costs' on? If they were just passing increased costs
on, then their profits would be more or less flat. The profits reach
records because their cost for the oil has remained more or less the
same while the market price for the oil has increased.

Surely, you jest. You actually believe that /any/ oil company is
buying a barrel of Saudi crude for just $5?

That's the extraction cost.

Why would the Saudi's be taking just $5 for their oil?

They aren't getting $75 a barrel for it. There are generally contracts
and royalties that outline what the governments get.

Got news for you: Aramco was nationalized in 1974. The oil production
is all controlled by the Saudi's. They receive /no/ royalties. They
get /all/ of the barrel price for their crude.

Um read the article I cited. The oil fields are controlled by
nationalized companies, but they get royalties for the oil.

"Nationalized" companies are owned by the government. That's what
nationalized means. Yes, the companies get income from the oil they
produce, but since the company is owned by the government, it's the
government that gets that income..

And while he's at it he can look at a chart of Saudi Arabia's revenue
per each $1 increase of the price per barrel.

You need to go back to grade school and learn percentages.

20% of $30 is less than 20% of $75.

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 23:44:48 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

In article ,
"Edward Dolan" wrote:

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
... [...]

[newsgroups trimmed]

Human progress is continuous despite the misguided efforts of some
conservatives to prevent it and to keep us trapped in the
Eisenhower Years.

Those were golden years following our victories in W.W.II. It has
been all downhill ever since. America is being eroded and destroyed
by multiculturalism. I blame liberalism for all our woes. Yea, we
will never see such a golden age again as those Eisenhower years.

The Golden Age was document on TV in such classics as "Father Knows
Best." Unfortunately the reality of those Golden Years was rather
different, but conservatism likes its sepia colored glasses.

Human progress is anything but continuous. I have never read anything
so asinine in my life.

Cheers to you too, Ed (and fellow Minnesotan). You fail to understand
that history has controlling trends, and that conservatism is constantly
fighting a rearguard action that it is doomed to lose. That you choose
to blame liberalism for all our woes just shows that you're an idiot.

Umm. That's one of many things that shows that he's an idiot.
Referring to yourself as "The Great" would suffice for me.