Car Forum / Antique and Collectibles / Studebaker / May 2007
Energy Independence - a not so modest proposal <OT>
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Jeff DeWitt - 20 May 2007 18:26 GMT A while back I cooked up this bright idea, and our recent hydrogen thread reminded me of it. Any thoughts?
There is a lot of talk among the political types about energy independence, while that is mostly a pipe dream it is insane for a country as great as the United States to let itself up in a position where regimes as warped as Iran's and Venezuela can put our economy at serious risk. While we can't be totally energy independent any time soon we can get ourselves in a position where a major disruption in supplies from other parts of the world won't seriously damage our economy. Toward that end I offer my own energy plan, it offers incentives to reduce our imports, increase domestic production, and provide abundant supplies of clean, inexpensive electricity.
1. All taxes on the production of domestic oil and natural gas are to be repealed, and all expenses used for that production are to be tax free.
2. ANWAR and all other government controlled sites are to be opened for exploration and development, including off shore. All current environmental protections are to be followed.
3. The EPA's regulations on fuel and oil production will be scrutinized by a panel made up of scientists and engineers from the oil, auto and environmental industries to simplify the rules to a level an average American can understand. The use of boutique fuels will be eliminated.
4. Any lawsuits brought about as a result of this program will be dealt with on a loser pays basis; if the lawsuit is deemed to be frivolous the loser will be required to pay twice the expenses incurred by the defendant.
5. Starting one year from the enacting of this program all imported oil will be subject to a tax of the difference in price between the price of the imported oil and the price of equivalent domestically produced oil plus 10%.
6. Proceeds from the import oil tax will be used to create a fusion fund. That fund will be built up for a period not to exceed 5 years, the proceeds of that fund will be awarded in total to the whomever devises a practical, commercially viable fusion reactor.
7. After the 5 year period is past the fund will build for the next five years and be used to reward anyone who can devise a practicable method of making an economical, clean, non-petroleum based transportation fuel.
8. After 10 years the tax on imported petroleum products will expire.
After this program has run it's course we will have the ability to produce clean, virtually unlimited supplies of electricity, we will be well on our way toward getting off the "oil teat", and we will have developed our supplies of oil and gas enough so that any disruption of our foreign sources will be an inconvenience and not a disaster. We will also have developed our resources in the careful way we can do it now, instead of in the panicked way we would do it after a serious long term disruption from one of our major suppliers.
After all is said and done America will be cleaner, richer, more secure, and we could very well be energy independent!
midlant@earthlink.net - 20 May 2007 20:35 GMT > A while back I cooked up this bright idea, and our recent hydrogen > thread reminded me of it. Any thoughts? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 1. All taxes on the production of domestic oil and natural gas are to be > repealed, and all expenses used for that production are to be tax free. Let's keep the taxes and put them into running your program. Seed money will be needed to get the inventive guys going, otherwise it will be the same bunch as got us where we are now.
> 2. ANWAR and all other government controlled sites are to be opened for > exploration and development, including off shore. All current > environmental protections are to be followed. Start ANWAR on the road to production, but keep output low, with the ability to ramp up quickly. (Restart the CAFE to get the usage (Waste) down. Decrease registration fees so that the economy car costs little and the SUV owners can get one for running "after the six-pack" trips.
> 3. The EPA's regulations on fuel and oil production will be scrutinized > by a panel made up of scientists and engineers from the oil, auto and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with on a loser pays basis; if the lawsuit is deemed to be frivolous the > loser will be required to pay twice the expenses incurred by the defendant. (Probably unworkable, but I like the concept)
> 5. Starting one year from the enacting of this program all imported oil > will be subject to a tax of the difference in price between the price of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > proceeds of that fund will be awarded in total to the whomever devises a > practical, commercially viable fusion reactor. Hell, let's start with the French nukes right now! They have assembly- line output of great reactors whereas GE and the others will milk the fund for all they can.
> 7. After the 5 year period is past the fund will build for the next five > years and be used to reward anyone who can devise a practicable method > of making an economical, clean, non-petroleum based transportation fuel. Rape-seed bio-diesel coming soon in Europe. Clean diesels soon. (Former Navy engineman who loves them.)
> 8. After 10 years the tax on imported petroleum products will expire. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > After all is said and done America will be cleaner, richer, more secure, > and we could very well be energy independent! Looks good -- Karl
Jeff DeWitt - 21 May 2007 03:46 GMT >>A while back I cooked up this bright idea, and our recent hydrogen >>thread reminded me of it. Any thoughts? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > money will be needed to get the inventive guys going, otherwise it > will be the same bunch as got us where we are now. But taking off the taxes on domisticly produed oil and natural gas is to encourage it's production. If it still costs less to get oil from Venezuela that's where it will come from. Increasing domsitic production not only makes us more secure it also helps the domistic oil industry and all the jobs that go with it.
>>2. ANWAR and all other government controlled sites are to be opened for >>exploration and development, including off shore. All current [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > fees so that the economy car costs little and the SUV owners can get > one for running "after the six-pack" trips. CAFE standards never went away, they just havn't been increased in years. Plus they don't help. CAFE standards are a classic government "soloution" to a problem, they increase our costs, make the politicans feel good and at the end of the day do little or nothing to help the problem.
>>3. The EPA's regulations on fuel and oil production will be scrutinized >>by a panel made up of scientists and engineers from the oil, auto and [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > line output of great reactors whereas GE and the others will milk the > fund for all they can. That's fine with me, I'm a fan of nuclear power. However the goal of the fusion fund is to reward whoever can come up with a viable FUSION reactor, and no one can milk it because there is no payout until the reactor is produced.
> > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Rape-seed bio-diesel coming soon in Europe. > Clean diesels soon. (Former Navy engineman who loves them.) That's good (really!), but what I'm really thinking of is a replacement for gasoline, after all we have a HUGE fleet of gasoline powered cars (including our Studebakers of course) that can't burn rape seed oil.
>>8. After 10 years the tax on imported petroleum products will expire. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Looks good -- Karl midlant@earthlink.net - 22 May 2007 20:41 GMT > midl...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >>1. All taxes on the production of domestic oil and natural gas are to be > >>repealed, and all expenses used for that production are to be tax free. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > feel good and at the end of the day do little or nothing to help the > problem. But, they do cut fuel usage without limiting travel. KH>
> >>5. Starting one year from the enacting of this program all imported oil > >>will be subject to a tax of the difference in price between the price of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > reactor, and no one can milk it because there is no payout until the > reactor is produced. Good.we'll do both. B the time fusion is workable it will be time to replace the ones I suggested, anyhow>
> >>7. After the 5 year period is past the fund will build for the next five > >>years and be used to reward anyone who can devise a practicable method [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > for gasoline, after all we have a HUGE fleet of gasoline powered cars > (including our Studebakers of course) that can't burn rape seed oil. The Cubans replaced the engines in our old cars with Diesel. Now, imagine a turbo-BMW diesel-clone with turbo! (and heady-duty springs) in a Lark!
> >>8. After 10 years the tax on imported petroleum products will expire. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > - Show quoted text - It all depends on how far in the future you care about.
>From my own point of view, five to fifteen years is the future. To you it may be twice that long, in this instant I'm thinking something close to a century.
Karl H
Deepnhock - 20 May 2007 20:44 GMT Interesting idea(s)...
Knowing the state of the bureaucracy as it exists today... Getting us off the oil teat is not in the power brokers hands... Your plan says the tax will end in ten years. Have you EVER seen a tax end? But your idea has merit. There will be a whole new crop of young teats for the taxed to suckle on just to get their daily government sustenance. Jeff (The doubting Thomas of the OT NG) Rice
Barry - 20 May 2007 23:08 GMT Cynicism is well justified. Most of the proposals make too much sense to ever be implemented, and have no incentives for big lobbi$t$ to get behind. They are kind of like proposing to deport all illegals, end racial quotas and voting rights act, or repeal the Fed Reserve Act. Great ideas that will never happen short of a total revolution.
 Signature Barry'd in Studes
58 Packard Hawk 40 President 39 Coupe Exp. 59 DeLuxe 1/2 tn. 56 Packard "400"
> Interesting idea(s)... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > just to get their daily government sustenance. > Jeff (The doubting Thomas of the OT NG) Rice Jeff DeWitt - 21 May 2007 03:52 GMT > Cynicism is well justified. Most of the proposals make too much sense to > ever be implemented, and have no incentives for big lobbi$t$ to get behind. > They are kind of like proposing to deport all illegals, end racial quotas > and voting rights act, or repeal the Fed Reserve Act. Great ideas that will > never happen short of a total revolution. Actually I see incentives for big oil (opening up our oil fields), for companies like GE, some government agencies (NASA perhaps) and universities in the "Fusion Fund", and for the environmentalists, a clean replacement for gasoline and clean fusion power to eventually replace our coal and old style nuclear power plants.
Jeff DeWitt
Jeff DeWitt - 21 May 2007 03:49 GMT > Interesting idea(s)... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > just to get their daily government sustenance. > Jeff (The doubting Thomas of the OT NG) Rice Thanks,
Being anti big government I've tried to keep this plan as much out of the governments hands as possible, that's why the "Fusion fund" goes to whoever can develop a commercial fusion reactor, not to some bottomless government research project. It doesn't fund research, but offers a HUGE payout to whoever is successful.
Jeff DeWitt
Comatus@bex.net - 20 May 2007 23:24 GMT 1. All taxes on the production of domestic oil and natural gas are to be repealed, 2. ANWAR and all other government controlled sites are to be opened, 3. The EPA's regulations on fuel and oil production will be scrutinized, 4. Any lawsuits on a loser pays basis, 5. imported oil will be subject to a tax, 6. Proceeds from the import oil tax will be used to create a fusion fund. 7. The fund will reward anyone who can made non-petroleum based transportation fuel. 8. After 10 years the tax will expire.
This is just what I expected when "Texas oil men" "took over the government." I've just been waiting and waiting... I've made up my mind. I blame Halliburton.
Now that there is cynical I don't care WHO you are...
Deepnhock - 21 May 2007 02:18 GMT What a pipe dream... You want to repeal all taxes, and completely change our legal system (to the British tort system)... And you blame Haliburton for it all? You'd better check your exhaust system for leaks because carbon monoxide has affected your brain <g>.. Jeff ( I have a dream too...) Rice
Comatus@bex.net - 21 May 2007 04:08 GMT > What a pipe dream... <Tailpipe Dream?> > You want to repeal all taxes, and completely change our legal system (to > the British tort system)... ...hey, we got that tort system from the British, and if we're done with it, we should give it back.
> And you blame Haliburton for it all? ...well, that's the point, you see, this is the NG where we blame Halliburton. On this one, I'm blaming them for not acting like Halliburton.
> You'd better check your exhaust system for leaks because carbon monoxide > has affected your brain <g>.. ...Jeez, it's DeWitt's idea. I'm just supplying the conspiracy. And it's not monoxide, but the molecular structure's real similar <G>
> Jeff ( I have a dream too...) Rice Deepnhock - 21 May 2007 12:13 GMT LOL.... Good one... I kind of like that idea..
"Blame the bastards because they didn't act like the bastards they really are..."
I am gonna have to remember that one for my hall of fame comeback lines <gg>.
Oh, and for the tort system.. We should do just that... Loser pays court cost's... Jeff (And make the lawyers wear those white puffy wigs in court!) Rice Jeff
midlant@earthlink.net - 22 May 2007 20:54 GMT > Jeff (And make the lawyers wear those white puffy wigs in court!) Rice > Jeff No longer, in civil suits.
Monty Python was filmed back in the 1960s/ 70s, I think.
Karl
Dale J. - 20 May 2007 23:31 GMT You missed one thing that would also help; Government not bowing to the auto makers and big oil and actually mandating better fuel milage from all vehicles made and or imported in North America. No more "fleet average" but an actual milage PER VEHICLE. Something like 40-50 MPG for cars and 35-45 MPG for trucks or better might help too.
>A while back I cooked up this bright idea, and our recent hydrogen thread >reminded me of it. Any thoughts? [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > After all is said and done America will be cleaner, richer, more secure, > and we could very well be energy independent! Grumpy AuContraire - 21 May 2007 02:23 GMT The chances of *that* happening are about...... um, er, ... ZERO!
Wrong (money) path I'm afraid.
Regarding mileage... Honda made cars in the early/mid 1980's that regularly got 40-55 mpg and were relatively simple as compared with today's plastic.
But, wtf do I know...
JT
('83 Honda Civic FE averages 42 mpg mixed driving)
...and it has a vacuum leake somewhere under the carb..
> You missed one thing that would also help; Government not bowing to the > auto makers and big oil and actually mandating better fuel milage from all [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] >>After all is said and done America will be cleaner, richer, more secure, >>and we could very well be energy independent! Jeff DeWitt - 21 May 2007 03:56 GMT > The chances of *that* happening are about...... um, er, ... ZERO! > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > ...and it has a vacuum leake somewhere under the carb.. Yes they did, but that car wouldn't meet todays emission and safety laws... the automakers didn't add all those electronics just because they thought it would be cool!
Jeff DeWitt
>> You missed one thing that would also help; Government not bowing >> to the auto makers and big oil and actually mandating better fuel [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] >>> After all is said and done America will be cleaner, richer, more >>> secure, and we could very well be energy independent! George - 21 May 2007 14:08 GMT They make high mileage vehicles, they just won't sell them in North America (at least Canada smoothed the path for the Smart, but Smarts aren't the real answer) Lower cost HDI (high pressure direct injection, not TDI turbo) diesels are what we need, that run on unsulphered diesel, whether its 100% dino or better yet, some percentage of bio from whatever source. Running real bio-diesel, (not the filtered french fry stuff!) oil from canola/corn/grass/whatever that has been catylysed into real diesel fuel.
If you run 15%+ real biodiesel to 85%- dinodiesel, then the properties of bio tend to make up for the lack of sulphur for interior engine lubricity and other issues, like the leaking problems with sulphur-era injector pumps. Think of the problems of adding ethanol in gas engines not designed for it...except in diesel its in reverse, the more bio the better.
The last Federal budget in Canada did something useful to change people's buying habits. Toyota Prius hybrid or equivaltent like a Jetta TDI manual = $2,000 rebate on federal tax Toyota Yaris manual = $1000 rebate Most vehicles tax neutral Something like a thirsty gas V8 pickup = $1,000 extra tax Something like a Bentley or Ferrari or other gas guzzler = $2,000 extra tax
Honda is bitching here because none of their vehicles other than the hybrids--not the Civic, not the Fit, get high enough mileage to qualify for rebates. Their choice to sell cars with extra power over mileage. Yet, they stopped selling the Insight hybrid here, and they won't sell any diesels here either. Tough.
Something like a 4x4 diesel-electric pickup that can pull a stump out, tow useful stuff, but doesn't go any much faster than say 75 mph on level ground, and gets 45 mpg at say 60 mph--now that's what we need <G> Do we really have to get 0-60 in less than 8 seconds?
Jim Bartley on PEI
>> The chances of *that* happening are about...... um, er, ... ZERO! >> [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] >>>> After all is said and done America will be cleaner, richer, more >>>> secure, and we could very well be energy independent! Jeff DeWitt - 21 May 2007 23:31 GMT Tax credits and tax rebates are just government bribes to get people to do something... social engineering. Personally I favor the FairTax and that would put an end to such nonsense.
Here I think the screwy EPA regulations ban most diesel cars, I'm pretty sure there were never any plans to sell the diesel Smart's here.
Jeff DeWitt
> They make high mileage vehicles, they just won't sell them in North America > (at least Canada smoothed the path for the Smart, but Smarts aren't the real [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] >>>>>After all is said and done America will be cleaner, richer, more >>>>>secure, and we could very well be energy independent! Grumpy AuContraire - 21 May 2007 21:48 GMT >> The chances of *that* happening are about...... um, er, ... ZERO! >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Jeff DeWitt Yep, and that's why the guv'ment needs to get out of the regulation biz with the occasional obvious basic safety standards, (like laminated glass and seatbelts), and so on. Let the public pick their own poison and the marketplace will take care of the rest.
This guv'ment nannyism sure do need to stop...
JT
(Tire pressure sensors etc.... Bah! How stupid have we become?)
Jeff DeWitt - 21 May 2007 23:32 GMT >>> The chances of *that* happening are about...... um, er, ... ZERO! >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > (Tire pressure sensors etc.... Bah! How stupid have we become?) You're preaching to the choir.
Jeff DeWitt
Deepnhock - 21 May 2007 02:28 GMT Of interest is your comment about government madated to improve fuel economy. Just because you mandate something doesn't mean it will fly, or the buying public will buy it. Under the guise of cleaning up the air, the government has mandated truck manufacturers to clean up the diesel emissions. This has added beaucoup bucks to the cost of trucks, and the technology has screwed up the engines something awful. Every deadline date for an emission level has been met with massive pre-orders of trucks to beat the deadline, with a massive drop off of orders right after the orders have all been filled. The government's tinkering with the trucking industry has been doing little to solve the problem, as the number of trucks has increased anyways. Now... Imaging a drop dead date deadline tossed out to the auto industry to make a 75mpg car. All the mfr's will comply, and the new cars will cost $125,000 and nobody will buy them, not even the Greenies. Some sort of balance is needed, but it should be a reward system that rewards the consumer, not some stockholders quarterly dividend. Not saying a dividend is a bad thing, but to place quarterly earnings above all else is short sighted (lump exec bonus'es in there too)... Give me tax credits for doing the right thing (buying additional insulation, buying a high mileage car...investing in conservation)... Don't penalize me through legislation mandating profits for someone else at my expense... Jeff ( just one guys opinion..) Rice
Mike Hunter - 21 May 2007 16:55 GMT I wonder how many of the new Lexus gas/electric hybrids will be sold at the 124,999 asking price? LOL
My accountant sys it will take 55 years before one will begin to save money on fuel. At 81 years old I think I'll pass LOL
mike
.
> Of interest is your comment about government madated to improve fuel > economy. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > at my expense... > Jeff ( just one guys opinion..) Rice Jeff DeWitt - 21 May 2007 03:55 GMT > You missed one thing that would also help; Government not bowing to the > auto makers and big oil and actually mandating better fuel milage from all > vehicles made and or imported in North America. No more "fleet average" but > an actual milage PER VEHICLE. Something like 40-50 MPG for cars and 35-45 > MPG for trucks or better might help too. I didn't miss it, I dismissed it. In what is supposed to be a free society people should be free to drive whatever they want and can afford, it's really none of the governments business.
Jeff DeWitt
>>A while back I cooked up this bright idea, and our recent hydrogen thread >>reminded me of it. Any thoughts? [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >>After all is said and done America will be cleaner, richer, more secure, >>and we could very well be energy independent! Grumpy AuContraire - 21 May 2007 21:45 GMT >> You missed one thing that would also help; Government not bowing >> to the auto makers and big oil and actually mandating better fuel [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Jeff DeWitt Geeeeeeeez... Thar' you go again!
Whatever happened to, "What's good for GM is good for America?"
Yep, it Gitmo for you!
I scheduling the black chopper right now. Don't bother hiding, we have that magical IR/SLAR stuff to hunt you down like the dawg yo' is!
<g>
JT
(Who's pissed off 'cause non o' dat resoich money ended up in HIS pocket)
Mike Hunter - 21 May 2007 16:50 GMT I guess we can assume you did not think that comment through very well. There are plenty of cars on the market today that get over 35 MPG, but the best selling cars are not small cars but midsize cars.
People in a free society have a tendency to chose to buy the vehicles they need and want. One can not carry a family of five and all their stuff in a midget car. How does one tow a boat or a camper with a midget car? My one daughter has five children, to get where they need to go. She would need to revert to taking two cars, like she did until she bought a seven passenger SUV
Why not pass a law that says the vehicle must get 70 MPG, while they are at it? We could get around on mopeds, if everybody had their own LOL
mike
> You missed one thing that would also help; Government not bowing to > the auto makers and big oil and actually mandating better fuel milage from > all vehicles made and or imported in North America. No more "fleet > average" but an actual milage PER VEHICLE. Something like 40-50 MPG for > cars and 35-45 MPG for trucks or better might help too. Barry - 22 May 2007 06:21 GMT I heard on the news just today that SUV sales have not been affected by the high fuel prices, so you are correct, grampa!
> I guess we can assume you did not think that comment through very well. > There are plenty of cars on the market today that get over 35 MPG, but the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > average" but an actual milage PER VEHICLE. Something like 40-50 MPG for > > cars and 35-45 MPG for trucks or better might help too. Grumpy AuContraire - 21 May 2007 02:18 GMT You're thinking is dangerous and I calling the Department of Homeland Security, FBI, Secret Service, Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and maybe even the Coast Guard to find your quivering rebellious a.s and toss you into the darkest dank cell in 'Gitmo!
Other than that, it has merit...
<BEG>
JT
> A while back I cooked up this bright idea, and our recent hydrogen > thread reminded me of it. Any thoughts? [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > After all is said and done America will be cleaner, richer, more secure, > and we could very well be energy independent! Jeff DeWitt - 21 May 2007 03:38 GMT > You're thinking is dangerous and I calling the Department of Homeland > Security, FBI, Secret Service, Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and maybe [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > JT Thanks!
Jeff DeWitt (not hard to find!)
>> A while back I cooked up this bright idea, and our recent hydrogen >> thread reminded me of it. Any thoughts? [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >> After all is said and done America will be cleaner, richer, more >> secure, and we could very well be energy independent! midlant@earthlink.net - 22 May 2007 21:10 GMT > You're thinking is dangerous and I calling the Department of Homeland > Security, FBI, Secret Service, Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and maybe [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > JT COAST GUARD?
Hell, their Royal Caribean chartered liner won't be available for two months!
Karl
Alex Magdaleno - 21 May 2007 06:10 GMT Anwar is estimated to have about 6 months worth of oil. Boutique fuels reduce pollution. Not all states have the same weather and not all states have the same pollution problems.
>A while back I cooked up this bright idea, and our recent hydrogen thread >reminded me of it. Any thoughts? [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > After all is said and done America will be cleaner, richer, more secure, > and we could very well be energy independent! Jeff DeWitt - 21 May 2007 23:44 GMT > Anwar is estimated to have about 6 months worth of oil. IF the low ball estimates are right (they usually aren't), but so what? It's not OUR money that would be used to do the exploration and exploitation, it's the oil companies money. If they didn't think it was worth it they wouldn't bother. Obviously they disagree with you.
> Boutique fuels reduce pollution. Not all states have the same weather and
> not all states have the same pollution problems. So? The EPA screws around with numbers all the time, in our area they have been saying nasty things about our ozone levels... and they get much of the information from sensors located at ONE intersection that is notoriously jammed up so the numbers are way off... but they don't care.
The number of different fuel blends could be drastically reduced without having a significant impact on pollution while increasing the efficiency of the refineries AND increasing competition between them. 45 different blends is just insane.
Jeff DeWitt
>>A while back I cooked up this bright idea, and our recent hydrogen thread >>reminded me of it. Any thoughts? [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >>After all is said and done America will be cleaner, richer, more secure, >>and we could very well be energy independent! Mike Hunter - 22 May 2007 15:22 GMT That is what the environuts said about the north slope fifteen years ago LOL
mike
>> Anwar is estimated to have about 6 months worth of oil. midlant@earthlink.net - 22 May 2007 21:15 GMT > So? The EPA screws around with numbers all the time... So who doesn't?
Read "How to Lie with Statistics. It was first published in the late 40s, IIRC, and is still the best for the average reader. Light, but fasinating, reading.
Karl
Alex Magdaleno - 23 May 2007 06:11 GMT No, 6 months supply is a lot of oil for one company, and thus they would make a profit. If there were six months worth of oil in Yosemite Valley would you say we should put up a bunch of wells there?
>> Anwar is estimated to have about 6 months worth of oil. > [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] >>>After all is said and done America will be cleaner, richer, more secure, >>>and we could very well be energy independent! Gordon Richmond - 23 May 2007 06:50 GMT >No, 6 months supply is a lot of oil for one company, and thus they would >make a profit. If there were six months worth of oil in Yosemite Valley >would you say we should put up a bunch of wells there? Sure, why not? Oil extraction can be done with a very small, and TEMPORARY impact on the local environment. There's an abandoned well about 300 yards from my house. They have already cut off the casing below the topsoil, and once they re-grade the topsoil, no one will ever know it was there.
That "6 months supply" thing is a real canard, too. Even if true, the entire oil resource in ANWAR could not possibly be extracted in 6 months. A more probable timeline would see the oilfields in ANWAR producing a small but important fraction of domestic needs for 3 or 4 decades. Point is, ANWAR oil would displace an equivalent amount of imported oil, and help the balance of payment situation.
I suppose you know there are pumping wells on Wilshire Boulevard in Hollywood? They put up shell buildings around them. People drive right by, and never have a clue as to what really is happening inside.
Gord Richmond
Alex Magdaleno - 23 May 2007 15:48 GMT > Sure, why not? Oil extraction can be done with a very small, and TEMPORARY > impact on the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > topsoil, no one > will ever know it was there. Tell that to the people of Alaska who suffered from the Exxon Valdez fiasco, of the people of the Santa Barbara Coast who had a major spill there years ago
> the oilfields in ANWAR producing a small but important fraction of > domestic needs for 3 or > 4 decades. Four decades would mean it would supply 1.25% of our needs per year. We could save many times that much with increased CAFE standards.
Jeff DeWitt - 24 May 2007 02:31 GMT >> Sure, why not? Oil extraction can be done with a very small, and TEMPORARY >> impact on the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of the people of the Santa Barbara Coast who had a major spill there years > ago That wasn't from a well, that was from a drunk driver.
>> the oilfields in ANWAR producing a small but important fraction of >> domestic needs for 3 or >> 4 decades. > Four decades would mean it would supply 1.25% of our needs per year. We > could save many times that much with increased CAFE standards. The higher gas prices we are experiencing will save far more gas than any change in the CAFE standards, and again if the oil isn't worth getting then the oil companies wouldn't invest THEIR money to get it.
Besides, CAFE standards are a typical Congresscritter "solution" to a problem, it makes the Congressscritters feel like they are doing something, they can boast about it come reelection time, doesn't cost the government anything, costs US a bunch of money, and doesn't really accomplish anything.
Alex Magdaleno - 24 May 2007 06:40 GMT > The higher gas prices we are experiencing will save far more gas than any > change in the CAFE standards, and again if the oil isn't worth getting > then the oil companies wouldn't invest THEIR money to get it. And again, I'm not saying it's not worth the money for one company, I'm saying it's not much of a solution to our oil supply problem
> Besides, CAFE standards are a typical Congresscritter "solution" to a > problem, it makes the Congressscritters feel like they are doing > something, they can boast about it come reelection time, doesn't cost the > government anything, costs US a bunch of money, and doesn't really > accomplish anything. They accomplished plenty in the beginning. Our overall mileage went way up. The SUV craze has undercut it. I would bet that the majority of SUV drivers do not really need an SUV.
Jeff Rice - 24 May 2007 13:09 GMT I agree with the part about the SUV craze...and about the CAFE standard sieve. But the 'they' part isn't quite right. The manufacturers are going to build what the consumer will buy, keeping as much profit in it for themselves as they can get. When you do have cheap gasoline, the fickle consumer is going to buy as big a machine as his monthly payments can afford. When we had the 'real' shortage back in the seventies, people were dumping their big ol' Olds, Buicks, Caddy's, and Lincolns in droves, and the used car market sucked. We got quick band-aid fixes from our in country manufacturers (like the Vega and Chevette) that got a lot better mileage. But that was done pretty much by removing weight from the structure, and not ramping up the engine technology very much. 'They', the in country manufacturers pretty much opened the door to outsiders who already had the smaller, lightweight, high mileage vehicles in production elsewhere. They just flooded our country and consumers sucked it right up. Then we have a run up in our dollar along with cheap gas for a decade. Guess what? Hogs at the trough get what they want and the manufacturers build it... But this time their cost curve is screwed up because of their long term short sightedness of underfunding their pension liabilities. So now they cry wolf and try to wrap themselves in the insolvency blanket and try to change the rules in which they profit from. And the offshore people just keep plugging away selling their stuff and not playing that game. So now, the manufacturers are looking at the double barrel of having higher fuel prices force the demand for higher mileage cars, and they are going to have to react to it. But these higher mileage cars don't bring the profits that the big ol' boats do, so they are looking at higher production cost's with lower margins. Now they really are screwed, so they cry for help....again. Pretty soon there won't be a savior at the door. Ask Chrysler in a couple years what that is like. Jeff (Who drives a 2 seat Studebaker to save gas <g>) Rice
"Alex Magdaleno" wrote...
> They accomplished plenty in the beginning. Our overall mileage went way > up. The SUV craze has undercut it. I would bet that the majority of SUV > drivers do not really need an SUV.
>> The higher gas prices we are experiencing will save far more gas than any >> change in the CAFE standards, and again if the oil isn't worth getting [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> government anything, costs US a bunch of money, and doesn't really >> accomplish anything.
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Alex Magdaleno - 25 May 2007 16:45 GMT A pretty good analysis of what happened. I got burned by the 73 gas crisis when I wanted to sell a suburban with a 396 in it. Took a big loss. Another factor hurting the domestics is their medical costs for present and past employees. Most other countries we compete against have national healthcare.
>I agree with the part about the SUV craze...and about the CAFE standard >sieve. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >>> the government anything, costs US a bunch of money, and doesn't really >>> accomplish anything. Mike Hunter - 25 May 2007 17:00 GMT Yes they do and it's "free." LOL
mike
>A pretty good analysis of what happened. I got burned by the 73 gas crisis >when I wanted to sell a suburban with a 396 in it. Took a big loss. [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >>>> the government anything, costs US a bunch of money, and doesn't really >>>> accomplish anything. Alex Magdaleno - 28 May 2007 06:38 GMT It's not free but most countries spend less than half what we spend and they get much better results.
> Yes they do and it's "free." LOL > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >>>>> the government anything, costs US a bunch of money, and doesn't really >>>>> accomplish anything. Mike Hunter - 28 May 2007 16:29 GMT You forgot to say in my opinion, since what you believe is not born out by the facts. The US has the finest medical care in the world. One reason is there are far more life saving drugs available in the US than anywhere else in the world. Do a search of the limited number, of so called 'free' drugs, available in Canada, for example
mike
> It's not free but most countries spend less than half what we spend and > they get much better results. [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] >>>>>> the government anything, costs US a bunch of money, and doesn't >>>>>> really accomplish anything. Alex Magdaleno - 30 May 2007 05:52 GMT What I believe is always born out by facts. Here's something on how much we spend http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050712140821.htm As for results-- Many believe the US has the best health care in the world, but look at more JAMA stats!!! Of 13 countries the US rankings are terrible. (Countries in order of their average ranking - Japan, Sweden, Canada, France, Australia, Spain, Finland, Netherlands, U.K., Denmark, Belgium, US, and Germany.)
US ranking's are as follows: 13th (last) in low-birth weights 13th - neonatal mortality 11th - post neonatal mortality 13th - life lost excluding external causes 11th for life expectancy at 1 year for females 12th for males 10th for life expectancy at 15 years for females 12th for males 10th for life expectancy at 40 for females 9th for males 7th for life expectancy at 65 for females 7th for males 10th for age adjusted mortality.
> You forgot to say in my opinion, since what you believe is not born out by > the facts. The US has the finest medical care in the world. One reason [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] >>>>>>> cost the government anything, costs US a bunch of money, and doesn't >>>>>>> really accomplish anything. Grumpy AuContraire - 25 May 2007 20:02 GMT > A pretty good analysis of what happened. I got burned by the 73 gas crisis > when I wanted to sell a suburban with a 396 in it. Took a big loss. > Another factor hurting the domestics is their medical costs for present and > past employees. Most other countries we compete against have national > healthcare. And their gas prices are nearly (if not) double ours to help pay for that national healthcare.
No thanks!
JT
Jeff DeWitt - 26 May 2007 01:17 GMT >> A pretty good analysis of what happened. I got burned by the 73 gas >> crisis when I wanted to sell a suburban with a 396 in it. Took a big [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > JT Which means the citizens of those countries are subsidizing their auto industry so we can get cheaper cars.
Jeff DeWitt
Alex Magdaleno - 28 May 2007 06:41 GMT If I doubled my gas budget it would still be a hell of a lot less than the $650 a month I spend for just my share of the medical costs the fire department supplies. You have bought into the lies told by those who are getting rich on our system. The countries with national health care spend less than half of what we spend and they get better results.
>> A pretty good analysis of what happened. I got burned by the 73 gas >> crisis when I wanted to sell a suburban with a 396 in it. Took a big [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > JT Jeff DeWitt - 28 May 2007 18:18 GMT > If I doubled my gas budget it would still be a hell of a lot less than the > $650 a month I spend for just my share of the medical costs the fire > department supplies. You have bought into the lies told by those who are > getting rich on our system. The countries with national health care spend > less than half of what we spend and they get better results. Sure, that's why the people in those countries who can afford it come HERE for medical care.
Jeff DeWitt
>>> A pretty good analysis of what happened. I got burned by the 73 gas >>> crisis when I wanted to sell a suburban with a 396 in it. Took a big [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> JT Alex Magdaleno - 30 May 2007 05:53 GMT Very few do that. We are talking about overall results and our ratings are poor.
Here's something on how much we spend http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050712140821.htm As for results-- Many believe the US has the best health care in the world, but look at more JAMA stats!!! Of 13 countries the US rankings are terrible. (Countries in order of their average ranking - Japan, Sweden, Canada, France, Australia, Spain, Finland, Netherlands, U.K., Denmark, Belgium, US, and Germany.)
US ranking's are as follows: 13th (last) in low-birth weights 13th - neonatal mortality 11th - post neonatal mortality 13th - life lost excluding external causes 11th for life expectancy at 1 year for females 12th for males 10th for life expectancy at 15 years for females 12th for males 10th for life expectancy at 40 for females 9th for males 7th for life expectancy at 65 for females 7th for males 10th for age adjusted mortality.
>> If I doubled my gas budget it would still be a hell of a lot less than >> the $650 a month I spend for just my share of the medical costs the fire [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >>> >>> JT Grumpy AuContraire - 29 May 2007 02:23 GMT Bzzzzzzzt... While some of the outrageous costs of health insurance is due to the proliferation of prescription drugs, the major part is due to the artificially inflated costs to the paying consumer to make up for those who do not have, (or will not get), health insurance.
A perfect example of providers vs. takers...
JT
> If I doubled my gas budget it would still be a hell of a lot less than the > $650 a month I spend for just my share of the medical costs the fire [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> >>JT Mike Hunter - 29 May 2007 16:55 GMT Research the Bertram / Hill bill, for the one of the major reasons why your medical bills are where they are in the US. ;)
mike
> Bzzzzzzzt... While some of the outrageous costs of health insurance is > due to the proliferation of prescription drugs, the major part is due to [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >>> >>>JT Jeff DeWitt - 25 May 2007 00:13 GMT >>The higher gas prices we are experiencing will save far more gas than any >>change in the CAFE standards, and again if the oil isn't worth getting >>then the oil companies wouldn't invest THEIR money to get it. > > And again, I'm not saying it's not worth the money for one company, I'm > saying it's not much of a solution to our oil supply problem A SOLUTION no, a help yes.
>>Besides, CAFE standards are a typical Congresscritter "solution" to a >>problem, it makes the Congressscritters feel like they are doing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The SUV craze has undercut it. I would bet that the majority of SUV drivers > do not really need an SUV. What they accomplished is the automakers building a bunch of little economical cars that no one really wanted so we often sold at less than it cost to build to push up the automakers average fuel economy so they could then build and sell the profitable cars people actually wanted.
Face it, this is a big country and we are by and large big people, so we want big comfortable vehicles.
People are just not going to adopt cars like the Smart in droves, they didn't do it in Europe so we sure aren't going to do it here. If gas prices stay high you are just not going to see things like full size pickups and Escalades go away, what your going to see is those sorts of vehicles with new types of drivetrains.
How about a plug in hybrid diesel Escalade that gets 50 MPG around town?
Jeff DeWitt
Alex Magdaleno - 25 May 2007 16:48 GMT True, we don't want little cars, but Camrys and Avalons have pretty good room and lots better milage that a big SUV.
>>>The higher gas prices we are experiencing will save far more gas than any >>>change in the CAFE standards, and again if the oil isn't worth getting [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Jeff DeWitt Mike Hunter - 25 May 2007 17:04 GMT But not a good as many of the domestic models that can be purchased for less. GM has far more models for sale in the US that get 30 MPG. or more, than does any import brand
mike
> True, we don't want little cars, but Camrys and Avalons have pretty good > room and lots better milage that a big SUV. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >> >> Jeff DeWitt Grumpy AuContraire - 25 May 2007 20:03 GMT Now, you're talkin' nonsense again.
JT
> But not a good as many of the domestic models that can be purchased for > less. GM has far more models for sale in the US that get 30 MPG. or more, [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >>> >>>Jeff DeWitt Alex Magdaleno - 28 May 2007 06:45 GMT When they can make a car as reliable as a Camry or Honda I'll buy American.
> But not a good as many of the domestic models that can be purchased for > less. GM has far more models for sale in the US that get 30 MPG. or more, [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >>> >>> Jeff DeWitt me@notanywhere.net - 28 May 2007 20:00 GMT On Sun, 27 May 2007 22:45:04 -0700, you wrote:
>When they can make a car as reliable as a Camry or Honda I'll buy American. exactly.. pulling a motor out to work on it, think its got a bad cam, but, 190,000 miles on a Mitsubishi isnt TOO bad.. my old 350 Chevy ate a set of heads every 10,000 miles when I had it, finally got smart and got rid of it.. --Shiva--
Jeff Rice - 28 May 2007 23:30 GMT Every 10,000 miles? Like so many other stories, I wonder about the details left out sometimes...
<Shiva wrote:
> exactly.. pulling a motor out to work on it, think its got a bad > cam, but, 190,000 miles on a Mitsubishi isnt TOO bad.. > my old 350 Chevy ate a set of heads every 10,000 miles when I had > it, finally got smart and got rid of it..
>>When they can make a car as reliable as a Camry or Honda I'll buy >>American.
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
me@notanywhere.net - 29 May 2007 00:55 GMT On Mon, 28 May 2007 18:30:32 -0400, you wrote:
>Every 10,000 miles? >Like so many other stories, I wonder about the details left out sometimes... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> my old 350 Chevy ate a set of heads every 10,000 miles when I had >> it, finally got smart and got rid of it.. head split between center 2 cylinders, between the valves.. a set of rebuilt heads put on, and about 15 months later, same.. ditto the THIRD,. and BTW, was BOTH sides, not just one.. It didnt like heads.,. and i BOUGHT it with this problem.. when I traded it off, it was on #4 but I didnt bother, was tired of buying new heads. the guy I traded it to slapped a complete engine in and had no problems.
--Shiva--
Jeff DeWitt - 29 May 2007 01:13 GMT No kidding. I'm no fan of Chebby motors but they aren't THAT bad, it sounds like there was another problem that was never fixed... and even Toyota makes lemons.
Jeff DeWitt
> Every 10,000 miles? > Like so many other stories, I wonder about the details left out sometimes... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>> When they can make a car as reliable as a Camry or Honda I'll buy >>> American. me@notanywhere.net - 29 May 2007 04:17 GMT On Mon, 28 May 2007 20:13:58 -0400, you wrote:
>No kidding. I'm no fan of Chebby motors but they aren't THAT bad, it >sounds like there was another problem that was never fixed... and even >Toyota makes lemons. > >Jeff DeWitt my rebuild guy said there was a run of 'something wrong' heads, just my luck to keep getting them.. we tried 3 different casting numbers and it didnt help.. couple of years later there was another revision and the problem quit.. this WAS over 30 years back.. NEVER could get over 10 mpg with the POS either. the 352 Ford PU I had I recarbed and rejetted, did get 19 out of it
--Shiva--
Mike Hunter - 29 May 2007 17:54 GMT Can't prove it by me. Every manufacture, foreign or domestic, is building great stuff today. They have warranties from 50K / five years, up to 100K / ten years, rather than the 1,000 mile / thirty day warranties back in the day.
One needs to do the proper preventive maintenance, if they keep a car a long time. I have four old cars, a 1941 to 1983, all domestics with from 120K to 300K on the clocks. They all have the original drive train. The one with 300K is a 71 Pinto.
Any car you can buy today is far better than what was available 36 to 66 years ago. I haven't had a bad car in over twenty years. They are make some that are not up to snuff on occasion. The two cars, of the over seventy I have owned, that were problematic were a 1951 Chevy and a 1986 Honda ;)
mike
> Every 10,000 miles? > Like so many other stories, I wonder about the details left out [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>>When they can make a car as reliable as a Camry or Honda I'll buy >>>American. Jeff DeWitt - 26 May 2007 01:20 GMT > True, we don't want little cars, but Camrys and Avalons have pretty good > room and lots better milage that a big SUV. They don't have nearly the room of a big SUV, nor the towing capacity. I'd like to see how far someone gets towing a ski boat with a Camry loaded with six passengers and all the gear for a weekend at the lake.
Jeff DeWitt
>>>>The higher gas prices we are experiencing will save far more gas than any >>>>change in the CAFE standards, and again if the oil isn't worth getting [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> >>Jeff DeWitt Alex Magdaleno - 28 May 2007 06:44 GMT Yes, as I have said, some people need a SUV. The majority don't and that include many who have them now, who have no boat, never tow anything and have a small family.
>> True, we don't want little cars, but Camrys and Avalons have pretty good >> room and lots better milage that a big SUV. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >>> >>>Jeff DeWitt Mike Hunter - 28 May 2007 16:32 GMT If that is the case I would not buy an SUV if I were you. Please explain how you know what others 'need.' ;)
> Yes, as I have said, some people need a SUV. The majority don't and that > include many who have them now, who have no boat, never tow anything and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> Jeff DeWitt Jeff DeWitt - 24 May 2007 02:33 GMT > No, 6 months supply is a lot of oil for one company, and thus they would > make a profit. If there were six months worth of oil in Yosemite Valley > would you say we should put up a bunch of wells there? If it were done right, and the royalties went to the National Parks why not? The parks can use the money and we can use the oil... and far better the money go to our parks than to the Saudis!
>>> Anwar is estimated to have about 6 months worth of oil. >> [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] >>>> After all is said and done America will be cleaner, richer, more secure, >>>> and we could very well be energy independent! Alex Magdaleno - 24 May 2007 06:41 GMT > If it were done right, and the royalties went to the National Parks why > not? The parks can use the money and we can use the oil... and far better > the money go to our parks than to the Saudis! Have you ever heard a well being drilled? Not exactly what I want to hear or see when I go to wild areas.
Gordon Richmond - 24 May 2007 08:25 GMT >> If it were done right, and the royalties went to the National Parks why >> not? The parks can use the money and we can use the oil... and far better >> the money go to our parks than to the Saudis! >> >Have you ever heard a well being drilled? Not exactly what I want to hear or >see when I go to wild areas. It takes anywhere from 1 day to a few months to drill a typical oil or gas well. I'd say the vast majority of wells are drilled in under a month. There are simply not enough drilling rigs in existence to render every piece of "wilderness" noisy at any one time.
I spend my working life around drilling rigs, and in wooded areas it can be damn hard to find one. Even with a map or directions to follow, you often don't see them until you've turned the final bend in the road, and are pointed right at it. And the wildlife generally ignore them, too. Quite common to see deer grazing placidly within sight of a working rig, ditto elk, caribou, and moose. I've seen a black bear snooping around RIGHT UNDER the sub-structure of an operating rig, right next to the BOPs. Probably scavenging food dropped by the hands.
Gord Richmond
Mark Dunning - 25 May 2007 16:34 GMT >>> If it were done right, and the royalties went to the National Parks why >>> not? The parks can use the money and we can use the oil... and far [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Gord Richmond You mean that each well does not immediately become a Toxic Waste Site? You mean that pumping a naturally occurring substance up so it can be used to drive our economy does not turn the local area into a desolate wasteland, devoid of all plant and animal life?
WoW!
I live in Western Pennsylvania - Titusville- home of the world's first commercial oil well. If something bad can be done to the environment by oil drilling, refining, pipelines, and other processes- it has been done here.
We have tons of deer, turkey, bear, etc etc etc. We drink the water that comes out of the ground and eat the fish that swim in the creeks.
Found on the web May 21... .....Price of crude oil last year at this time $80 ......Price of unleaded gasoline last year at this time $2.35
.........Price of crude oil right now $64
......Price of unleaded gasoline right now $2.41
Just the messenger. People seem to agree that it's the lack of refining capacity, none built in twenty years.
Seems logical and sad. Allow me to offer the thought that while our economy has grown since last year, our oil refining capability has remained static, courtesy of the Greens.
Mark (Not driving as much here, Boss) Dunning
Gordon Richmond - 25 May 2007 18:08 GMT >>>> If it were done right, and the royalties went to the National Parks why >>>> not? The parks can use the money and we can use the oil... and far [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > >Mark (Not driving as much here, Boss) Dunning Mark,
There have been no new refineries built, but throughput has increased a bit because of improvements made to existing refineries.
I can sort of see the sense in the reluctance of oil companies' refusal to build new ones, given the current regulatory environment, and given that we may well be approaching a peak in oil production. A refinery is a long-term investment, and if your long-term projections show that crude supplies are about to dwindle, a new refinery makes little sense.
*The following is just me preaching in general, and is NOT directed at anyone here, specifically.*
/rant
People who complain the loudest about gas prices also seem to be the ones who do the least, personally, to modify their consumption habits.
It seems the shortfall between refinery capacity and fuel consumption is only a couple of percentage points. I hear these people say, "I've got to drive my car to work!" OK, not disputing that, but do you have to drive ALONE? Car-pool or ride-share with ONE other person, and your fuel cost for commuting is cut by 50%. Is it THAT hard to do? If work commuting is a major use of your vehicle, then it makes sense to pick a vehicle that is optimized for that task. Don't use the one-ton dually for commuting because you "had to have it to tow the boat trailer" 5 weekends a year.
If everybody in North America were to switch to a Diesel-powered vehicle as their daily driver, the current fuel shortage would turn into a surplus, because Diesels get better mileage, on a size-for-size basis, and also, one can get more Diesel fuel out of a barrel of crude than one can get gasoline. And with the new ultra-low sulfur Diesel, there is no longer any emissions-related reason NOT to use Diesel.
My own daily driver is a '96 Suburban Diesel; its fuel mileage isn't spectacular, but it beats the gasoline-powered counterpart. When I drive it for work, my mileage is paid for, and I come out ahead on the deal, enough ahead that I can afford the fuel I burn for personal trips. If my work situation were different, and I had to do a daily commute at my own expense, I'd drive something else, even a little sh*tbox Honda, as long as it got excellent fuel mileage. (Actually, I'd hunt down a mid-'80s Nissan Diesel pickup, they run forever.) Point is, I wouldn't continue to run the 'burb in circumstances where it wasn't advantageous for me to use it.
/rant
Gord Richmond
Grumpy AuContraire - 25 May 2007 20:07 GMT snip
If my work situation were different, and I had to do a daily commute at my
> own expense, I'd drive something else, even a little sh*tbox Honda, as long as it got > excellent fuel mileage. Heyyyyy... Wuz dat aimed at me????
<GGG>
JT
(Driving a shitbox (ancient) Honda and proud of it...)
George - 26 May 2007 03:15 GMT Its always worthwhile reading what Gordon has to say. As usual, he has a good analysis. As I mentioned before, I wish there was a diesel+electric (assist) 4x4 pickup/whatever that could -tow a Studebaker "once in a while", or a boat, or a Boler--maybe 5 weekends a year -have a top speed no more than 70 mph (as the tradeoff--and why do you want to tow your Stude at 90 anyway?) -be able to cruise all day under load at 55-60 -take a while to get to top speed of 70 (as another tradeoff), as long as it was no more than about 30 seconds or so -get about 50 mpg all the time, running on clean diesel -start under $20K, with no electric anything except lights and a radio <G> -with real comfortable seats, & big enough for a carpool to work
I'd buy one. They just don't sell one in North America. You gotta buy something with cruddy mileage, 0-60 in 7.5 seconds, and a top speed of over 100, at over $40K if you want the other things...
Jim Bartley on PEI- maybe a base 2008 Jeep Patriot with a 1.9 litre diesel?
> Mark, > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > Gord Richmond Tom Adkins - 25 May 2007 20:05 GMT > You mean that each well does not immediately become a Toxic Waste Site? > You mean that pumping a naturally occurring substance up so it can be used [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Mark (Not driving as much here, Boss) Dunning I've been to your local toxic wasteland and seen first hand what evil oil production can inflict on an area! You folks should be ashamed! All of those tree lined country roads in and out of town and all of that wildlife is a hazard to the general public. And that gurgling dump of a State Park is disgraceful. Don't get me started on the water. That horrid brew has no smell, taste or texture. Pure poison from the tap! I don't want that mess in my back yard! (here in Cleveland) ;)
My oldest daughter grew up in Tidioute with her mom. Crawford County, PA is some of the prettiest territory in the Eastern US.
Jeff Rice - 25 May 2007 23:48 GMT Cleveland... Where the river catches fire? Oh, I suppose times have changed, but Cleveland is one city that has an ugly side on all four corners. Jeff (and one of those sides is a lake) Rice
"Tom Adkins" wrote...
>> You mean that each well does not immediately become a Toxic Waste Site? >> You mean that pumping a naturally occurring substance up so it can be [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > My oldest daughter grew up in Tidioute with her mom. Crawford County, PA > is some of the prettiest territory in the Eastern US.
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Grumpy AuContraire - 26 May 2007 00:24 GMT That's it!
Yea... That's whar' the river burns..
<G>
JT
> Cleveland... > Where the river catches fire? [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> My oldest daughter grew up in Tidioute with her mom. Crawford County, PA >>is some of the prettiest territory in the Eastern US. Tom Adkins - 26 May 2007 01:54 GMT > Cleveland... > Where the river catches fire? > Oh, I suppose times have changed, but Cleveland is one city that has an ugly > side on all four corners. > Jeff (and one of those sides is a lake) Rice Hey now, I'll have you know that our river hasn't caught fire in days!
It's funny how a city can laugh at itself. There are a number of local "Burning River" products. Burning River Ale (Great Lakes Brewery) is tasty stuff. Tom (I'll have the Elliot Ness Dark) Adkins
Grumpy AuContraire - 26 May 2007 05:36 GMT >> Cleveland... >> Where the river catches fire? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > tasty stuff. > Tom (I'll have the Elliot Ness Dark) Adkins Some cities intentionally light up their rivers...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WaterFire
JT
the studeprune - 26 May 2007 01:54 GMT >>>> If it were done right, and the royalties went to the National Parks why >>>> not? The parks can use the money and we can use the oil... and far [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- Does anyone ever consider that what the oil companies are doing, with the refineries, .... is the same thing that Ennron, did with the power companies, to get the price of electricity up... If it's so obvious, why aren't the regulatory boyz, getting into the fray. Looks like they don't give a s**t or have been told to lay off.
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Studebaker Kid - 24 May 2007 08:11 GMT THis has nothing to do with petrol but it could put more petrol in your tank.
Currently there is a bill pending for a tax credit for owners of small scale wind power plants.
H.R. 1772 is the House number.
What it will do if it gets enough support is provide a federal income tax credit of $1500 per 1/2 kw of generator capacity to the owner. So those of us that have a bit of land and a breeze could get atax credit if we invest in our own wind electricity generating plant.
Sure looks like a good deal to me to not have an electricity bill and possibly get payed by the electric utility.
|
|
|