World War Three has started

**abelard**

**Brent P[_1_]**

In article >, Don Klipstein wrote:

> It's up to American consumers to increase the flexibility of their
> gasoline demand to change that - so that decreasing supply decreases sales
> without much gain in price.

So what's your idea to reduce consumption by about 30%?

>>In anycase, if say big oil company X buys a refinery from little company
>>Z and shuts it down. Did company X just gain or lose market share?

> Company X paid a couple billion for a refinery and is hoping to make it
> back in higher prices, more than anything. Meanwhile, X probably gets a
> few of Z's customers and gains market share (in terms of percentage of
> a smaller but higher priced pie), and sells no fewer gallons of gas.
> Unless X's customers lose their apathy and/or fatalism and boycott
> Company X.

There ya go. X gains market share by closing a refinery.

>>This only stops when there are just big players left. Has the US reached
>>that point yet? Or then again, it might not... the bigger big ones could
>>just buy the smaller big ones and shut down refinineries.

> If nothing else stops the price from increasing, unending price rises
> will make someone find a profit motive to become a new supplier.

There are many government enforced regulatory barriers to enter market.
The estimated time from planning to ground breaking for a new refinery is
_ten_ years. Are you sure you want to spend todays money guessing what
the gasoline market will be a dozen years from now?

> Some new
> company can make a boatload of money by building a refinery in Canada or
> Mexico if refinery markup gets to a dollar or two per gallon.

How are they going to get the gasoline across the border? The US
government is sure to protect big oil's interests.

> Meanwhile, if Americans respond to deliberate supply reductions by
> consuming proportionately less gasoline, then "Big Oil" sells less with no
> price boost and makes less money.

They just make less and the traders will still drive the price up. The
problem is, this is not in any way an ideal market, yet people still want
to apply ideal free market principles to it. It's anything but a free
market, it's a controlled and regulated market of something needed for what
the infastructure is built around.

>>But if this became a problem, big oil could easily used
>>their purchased political power to put a stop to it.

> Vote for the opponents of the rascals permitting this! Do so in the
> primary election as well as in November!

Um, we only have one effective political party in the USA. It's a
non-choice for most elections. Until the people start voting for
something other than democrats and republicans, controlling government is
easy.

> When Americans care more about
> that than about which side of "gay marriage" or flag burning the
> Congresscritters are on, and when Americans are willing to vote for
> someone other than whoever cluttered the airwaves with the most ads (and
> therefore owing the most favors to campaign contributors), Congress will
> respond better to their constituents' pocketbooks and wallets!

The masses care about whatever the network TV news tells them to care
about. This is why the TV network news doesn't cover real events, real
news, things that are important. They cover "gay marriage" and go for the
distractions that congress criters offer up. The dramas of the day. So
the work they are doing for their masters and themselves against the US
citizens goes for the most part un-noticed. Bring up the real issues, and
you'll be considered a 'kook' by the vast majority of the population
because they didn't hear it on the NBC nightly news.

**Brent P[_1_]**

In article >, Scorpius wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:03:58 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>There hasn't been any unpredicted or dramatic rise in demand.
>
> China, India, other newly industrialized countries have emerged as
> large users of oil.

And if you're brain dead and living in a cave you might not have seen
that coming.

However, that ramp up was nothing dramatic or surprising to anyone who's
even done a half-ass job paying attention to what's been going on in the
world for the last decade plus.

**abelard**

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 04:19:06 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein)

typed:
>In article >, abelard wrote:
>>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 04:21:00 +0000 (UTC), (Don
>>Klipstein)
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>> How about shale oil costing a lot more than $40 per barrel to get out of
>>>the shale? I heard figures ranging from $60 to $100 per barrel to get oil
>>>from oil shale. If it looks like oil prices will reliably remain at a
>>>level that makes extraction from oil shale profitable, then we will see
>>>shale oil being added to the supply.
>>
>>shale oil is generally a poor and highly polluting source....
>>it isn't just about price....it is very far from just about price....
>>read this
>>http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.asp
>
> I went there (a page apparently yours) and did not see much explanation
>of polluting aspects of shale oil, although you berate oil from tar sands
>despite your page appearing to mention them as being able to supply the
>world's needs for 5 years (and appearing to make a minus out of that).
>
> Could you point me to an explanation as to how shale oil is so badly
>polluting?

there are many sources for that...among other issues is access to
sufficient water....

the current extraction is of the most easily accessible...a point that was
in the item linked...

as i note a lot of market fundamentalists on this thread, i am going in
cautiously, but global warming is an issue to anyone who is not
blinded by fossil fuel corp etc propaganda...
the market fundamentalists are every bit as nutz as the pseudo-greens

you'd be far better moving to nuclear power as quickly as you can....
and stopping waste (but several have already mentioned that last factor...

the situation is multi-factor...as usual when i see these threads and
posts, most of the posters
1)can't cope with more than one variable
2)have some axe to grind
3)prefer the ostrich position...

i normally don't bother to argue, but leave the brighter posters to catch
up and then deal with the dumb/slow/deluded ones....

this book is a reasonable place to start...
http://www.abelard.org/news/ecology0601.php#gaia_160106

there are several links to related issues on the link above from the
previous post...

here from today's crop...
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsst...7315/story.htm
"The countries were China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa."
[trying to avoid curbs...just about everyone is lying and trying to avoid
the problem...the ostrich position is highly popular]

the west is exporting its pollution to the 'developing' countries.....
it won't go away merely because people wish it would.....

regards

>>those who try to argue unadorned market economics on oil don't have a
>> useful grasp of the realities....
>
><SNIP>
>
> - Don Klipstein )

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**abelard**

**Scorpius**

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:49:46 +0200, abelard >
wrote:

>>Or they will convert diesel engines to burn old McDonald's french fry
>>oil.

>you're not daft enuf to believe that....it'd probably run at most a few
> hundred suvs out of your millions

It was meant as a joke. But there are people who actually do it - they
burn old fry grease.

--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

**abelard**

**[email protected]**

In article >,
(Scorpius) wrote:

> Hydrogen is the best choice for motor fuels.

Without further ado:

Ladies and Gentlemen, the all-new, 2007 Chevrolet Hindenburg!

**Scorpius**

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:29:21 +0000 (UTC), in (Jan
Kalin) wrote:

>> And with the rise in
>>humidity in urban areas, the need for air condition will increase.

>Not really. A back of the envelope calculation, assuming:

>- 1 billion (that's 1E9) cars
>- each with a with 100kW (136HP) engine
>- each running at full power for the whole day (24 hours)

>produce daily around 0.002% of the total water content of the atmosphere.

You left out the effects of temperature inversions.

In the desert southwest people used to be able to cool their houses
with evaporators. But then came mass urbanization in cities like
Phoenix which brought mass irrigation of lawns. That alone was enough
to raise the relative humidity above 40% where adiabatic cooling loses
efficiency dramatically. It is my understanding that you cannot use
swamp cooling there anymore.

--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

**[email protected]**

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Battery shorted, jump started fine, now it's dead but shows fully charged?	Flippy Smith	Technology	5	July 12th 06 07:00 PM
Gas: The good 'ol days	[email protected]	Driving	314	September 6th 05 05:49 AM
Off Topic: Home town team doing good.	L.W.(ßill) Hughes III	Jeep	2	August 29th 05 02:05 AM
Can't get a 351W started. please help!!!	Ben Witek	4x4	10	February 2nd 04 12:31 PM