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

In article , Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
(Brent P) wrote:

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?

OK, let's go with oil sands. Many of the known deposits are also
financially non-viable.

When oil was less than US$40 a barrel. According article I've seen on
the subject, there are considerable, as in 2x of saudi arabia, maybe
more, that is viable at that price.

Some of the articles were cited in the previous post that provided a
link to.

Chavez's scheme of a more or less fixed US$50 a barrel for oil was to
allow for a stable oil price so that infastructure could be built to
extract and process the vast reserves of heavier crude in Venezuela. The
problem is, that oil remaining above $40 a barrel is uncertain enough
that the investment for such things isn't all that big. The saudis have
been very clear in their opinion that oil has been way over priced due to
world tensions.

Potentially more viable than shale, when oil
hits $200-300 per barrel (which it will). For the prices involved,
other energy options will be much more cost-viable.

When ever oil runs that low...

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:11:03 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

In article ,
R Brickston rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ wrote:

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.

And you think this partisan drivel is some sort of statement of fact?

Oil executives- who oughta know, after all- testified that there's not
much point in building new refineries in the U.S.

The topic was do the environmentalists prevent the building of
refineries. But to comment on your claim, you're saying big oil who
are big pals of the Republicans (just ask any liberal) are so
powerless they couldn't kill this bill in its infancy?

Between the
expectation of dropping crude production and increasing demand from
China and India, the oil industry mostly thinks it's a bad investment
because the refineries will end up being underutilized and thus
under-profitable. New refineries would be a bad business decision for
most oil companies.

What a minute, we're importing gasoline right now to make up for the
shortfall from the current refineries who are operating at near
maximum capacity.


And note that the Clean Air Act was signed into law by a Republican
president with major Republican Congressional support. It was one of
the major legislative achievements of the past 50 years.

And the Dems didn't have a thing to do with it?


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

And more people have died on George W. Bush's orders than died on 9/11.

It's a volunteer armed forces who know the danger. I doubt that the
9/11 victims would have volunteered to work that day given the same
knowledge.

Your point?

I think Teddy is the unfortunate result of sympathy votes caused by
his brothers assasinations.

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:12:21 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , R Brickston wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:18:48 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , Bill Funk wrote:

Also there is probably a fair number of other reasons for invading
including having a base of operations in the region and generally
causing instability, which increases prices further. A bombing then calm
for years then a bombing doesn't keep the prices as high as invasion and
instability every day.

Wow. A nice conspiracy, there. And, like most such, it requires no
actual evidence.

What was the actual evidence the reason was WMDs? Oh, GWB said so. and he
_never_ lies, right?

"...I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and
biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations.
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to
eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our
troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. The citizens
of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein's activities; sadly,
those same citizens now stand to suffer more. I have supported efforts
to ease the humanitarian situation in Iraq and my thoughts and prayers
are with the innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as with the families of
U.S. troops participating in the current action.

I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is,
unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam
Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international
community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program.
While I support the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can
be resolved quickly and that the international community can find a
lasting solution through diplomatic means. "

snip

Wooptie do da day.... an uncited quote. I've seen it before can't quite
place it... probably from someone on the left side of the single
effective political party.

Just because I'm not on your 'team' doesn't mean I am on that other
'team'. Silly binary thinkers.


Oh, please! Confess, you know exactly who wrote it and under what
circumstances.

In article , R Brickston wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:10:33 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

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


Show me the contract language between Aramco and any oil company, that
defines the terms.

Show me the agreement between the US government and the greys. When all
else fails, demand a standard that cannot be met. (not being a saudi
prince nor an oil company executive I don't have access to such
agreements)

I've already showed you (with a cite) that it was a royalty system after
the Aramco was nationalized by the saudis.

Decades old information.

Newer than your's. Where's your cite.

I previously produced another
cite that clearly states that nationalized oil companies

Saudi specifically is the topic.

Where's your cite?

get their
revenue from royalty systems and that such a system is the norm.

According to whom? General belief? In any event, a set percentage,
unless exceedingly high, is doubtful.

See the cite I made. Where's your's?

Two
cites to your zero. It's up to you now to show that it is something
different, especially since you are claiming that the saudi case is
different from the world-wide norm.

BTW... Thought you kill filed me.

In article , R Brickston wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:12:21 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , R Brickston wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:18:48 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , Bill Funk wrote:

Also there is probably a fair number of other reasons for invading
including having a base of operations in the region and generally
causing instability, which increases prices further. A bombing then calm
for years then a bombing doesn't keep the prices as high as invasion and
instability every day.

Wow. A nice conspiracy, there. And, like most such, it requires no
actual evidence.

What was the actual evidence the reason was WMDs? Oh, GWB said so. and he
_never_ lies, right?

"...I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and
biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations.
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to
eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our
troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. The citizens
of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein's activities; sadly,
those same citizens now stand to suffer more. I have supported efforts
to ease the humanitarian situation in Iraq and my thoughts and prayers
are with the innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as with the families of
U.S. troops participating in the current action.

I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is,
unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam
Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international
community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program.
While I support the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can
be resolved quickly and that the international community can find a
lasting solution through diplomatic means. "

snip

Wooptie do da day.... an uncited quote. I've seen it before can't quite
place it... probably from someone on the left side of the single
effective political party.

Just because I'm not on your 'team' doesn't mean I am on that other
'team'. Silly binary thinkers.


Oh, please! Confess, you know exactly who wrote it and under what
circumstances.

I don't remember nor care. I do know it was either a democrat or a
republican, which are in my view essentially the same thing. Just
different in their excuses and pandering.

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 00:54:17 GMT, R Brickston
rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ wrote:

I'd like to see the source for any refineries that were purchased just
so they could be shut down for controlling supply.

Many of the 320 or so refineries in the 70's were independent and
subsidized, when that subsidy ended they couldn't survive and closed.

Smack. Back in your court. Show us your proof of your claims...

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 23:40:09 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

I can't tell you about bleeding heart liberals. Most all the other
liberals live in the same world you do, and probably drive about as
much. I'm a left-winger although my heart doesn't bleed much. I see it
as a practical matter of investing public assets in public goods with

Hey ****head, how about we invest your assets, not mine. There is no
such thing as public assets.

"Dane Buson" wrote
In rec.bicycles.misc Matthew Russotto
wrote:

The money for roads largely comes from drivers. The money for buses
and rail largely comes from (wait for it....) drivers.

How so? The gasoline tax? That doesn't cover even half of road
building and maintenace costs IIRC. Not to mention all the
externalities that are necessary for all that extra pavement.

As I understand it, more of the money comes from incomes taxes, sales
taxes and property taxes. i.e., from *everyone*, not just drivers. If
anything, it would seem to me that drivers are being subsidized in many
cases by non-drivers.

You are absolutely wrong. At least in WA state, all road construction
and maintenance comes entirely from gas tax, vehicle license fees,
truck road use fees and such (this also supports our ferry system.
By the state constitution, gas taxes can ONLY be used for roads - no
transit.) There is some use of tolls (new Narrows bridge for instance.)

Transit gets monies from sales tax, some property tax, and some
license fees.

The story is much the same in most other states, although I'm sure
that there are some that use general tax revenues.

FloydR

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:45:41 -0500, DTJ wrote:

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 00:54:17 GMT, R Brickston
rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ wrote:

I'd like to see the source for any refineries that were purchased just
so they could be shut down for controlling supply.

Many of the 320 or so refineries in the 70's were independent and
subsidized, when that subsidy ended they couldn't survive and closed.

Smack. Back in your court. Show us your proof of your claims...

Either it is or it isn't. Look it up if you like, it's easily found.

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:37:04 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , R Brickston wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:12:21 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , R Brickston wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:18:48 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , Bill Funk wrote:

Also there is probably a fair number of other reasons for invading
including having a base of operations in the region and generally
causing instability, which increases prices further. A bombing then calm
for years then a bombing doesn't keep the prices as high as invasion and
instability every day.

Wow. A nice conspiracy, there. And, like most such, it requires no
actual evidence.

What was the actual evidence the reason was WMDs? Oh, GWB said so. and he
_never_ lies, right?

"...I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and
biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations.
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to
eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our
troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. The citizens
of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein's activities; sadly,
those same citizens now stand to suffer more. I have supported efforts
to ease the humanitarian situation in Iraq and my thoughts and prayers
are with the innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as with the families of
U.S. troops participating in the current action.

I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is,
unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam
Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international
community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program.
While I support the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can
be resolved quickly and that the international community can find a
lasting solution through diplomatic means. "

snip

Wooptie do da day.... an uncited quote. I've seen it before can't quite
place it... probably from someone on the left side of the single
effective political party.

Just because I'm not on your 'team' doesn't mean I am on that other
'team'. Silly binary thinkers.


Oh, please! Confess, you know exactly who wrote it and under what
circumstances.

I don't remember nor care. I do know it was either a democrat or a
republican, which are in my view essentially the same thing. Just
different in their excuses and pandering.


Just like the adage "I only drink by myself or with someone."

Yet, you accuse Bush alone of the WMD "lies."

BTW, it was Nancy Pelosi on December 16, 1998.