A 10 Year Cooling Trend Predicted?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>But, I thought they were making soooooooo much money???

Jealous?

>10% of our refined gas is currently being brought in by tanker.
>Seems there may be some inconsistancy here?

Uh, no. Companies buy gas wherever it's cheaper. That's called capitalism. If you live in Wrangell, Alaska, it's probably going to be cheaper to buy a tanker of gasoline from Canada than it is to drill your own wells, set up a refinery and refine your own gas.

>You are in error here as siteing is going on near Souix City Iowa as I type

I don't think you even read what you reply to - or indeed your own replies.

>Where did I say this?

If you believe there is a refinery shortage, then basic economics would result in cheaper crude as the oil piles up, unable to be processed. Do you think crude is getting cheaper?

Your posts do not make any sense. You switch paths and points to what purpose?

The price of crude is NOT what we are talking about. But since you want to talk about it, more of it (via drilling) would make it cheaper dont you think?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>One of the reasons gas prices are so high is because the
>existing refineries have not been able to keep up.

Do you have a single shred of proof of this?

>And you can Google gas refinery in Souix City Iowa. The permits to
>build are being worked on now.

Ah. So environmentalists are NOT stopping new refineries from being planned.

They are trying

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

But, I thought they were making soooooooo much money???

One has nothing to do with the other. Google marginal analysis.

Quote

Quote

Mobil Oil: "We see no need to build new refineries" through 2030. 10% of our refined gas is currently being brought in by tanker.

Seems there may be some inconsistancy here?

Not necessarily. Odds are they can get that ten percent refined elsewhere for less money than they can refine it themselves. There are a variety of things that could cause such a scenario. As billvon pointed out, since the capacity of the refineries do not appear to be exceeded, it is very unlikely that the reason is a shortage of refineries.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There's no money or political capital to be made from Global Unwarming

Hey but we're just nutter deniers, what do we know?

Really? Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell and Chevron all seem to be making record profits from the status quo.

Those companies are making record profits because they are selling a product that is in demand. Free market economy at work. Plain and simple. If you don't like it feel free to walk or ride your bike.

I do, and it's quite irrelevant to the point. LOTS MORE MONEY is being made off the status quo than is being made by anyone warning about GW.

Gore is laughing all the way to the bank. The status quo you speak of is being protected by our inept politicians on both sides of the aisle.

Compare the total $$ supposedly made by Gore and others who are claimed to benefit from GW, with the total $$ known to be made by those who gain from preserving the status quo, and report back to us which is bigger.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

>But, I thought they were making soooooooo much money???

Jealous?

>10% of our refined gas is currently being brought in by tanker.
>Seems there may be some inconsistancy here?

Uh, no. Companies buy gas wherever it's cheaper. That's called capitalism. If you live in Wrangell, Alaska, it's probably going to be cheaper to buy a tanker of gasoline from Canada than it is to drill your own wells, set up a refinery and refine your own gas.

>You are in error here as siteing is going on near Souix City Iowa as I type

I don't think you even read what you reply to - or indeed your own replies.

>Where did I say this?

If you believe there is a refinery shortage, then basic economics would result in cheaper crude as the oil piles up, unable to be processed. Do you think crude is getting cheaper?

Your posts do not make any sense. You switch paths and points to what purpose?

The price of crude is NOT what we are talking about. But since you want to talk about it, more of it (via drilling) would make it cheaper dont you think?

As would lowering consumption.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>But, I thought they were making soooooooo much money???

Jealous?

>10% of our refined gas is currently being brought in by tanker.
>Seems there may be some inconsistancy here?

Uh, no. Companies buy gas wherever it's cheaper. That's called capitalism. If you live in Wrangell, Alaska, it's probably going to be cheaper to buy a tanker of gasoline from Canada than it is to drill your own wells, set up a refinery and refine your own gas.

>You are in error here as siteing is going on near Souix City Iowa as I type

I don't think you even read what you reply to - or indeed your own replies.

>Where did I say this?

If you believe there is a refinery shortage, then basic economics would result in cheaper crude as the oil piles up, unable to be processed. Do you think crude is getting cheaper?

Your posts do not make any sense. You switch paths and points to what purpose?

The price of crude is NOT what we are talking about. But since you want to talk about it, more of it (via drilling) would make it cheaper dont you think?

As would lowering consumption.

You can slow the increase but you will not see a reduction in our life times

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>One of the reasons gas prices are so high is because the
>existing refineries have not been able to keep up.

Do you have a single shred of proof of this?

>And you can Google gas refinery in Souix City Iowa. The permits to
>build are being worked on now.

Ah. So environmentalists are NOT stopping new refineries from being planned.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wgtimus2w.htm

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Wasnt to tuff to find

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wgtimus2w.htm

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Looks like I have more backing for my statements than you do.....

http://www.123jump.com/story/EIA%20Petroleum%20Status%20Report/27517/reports

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Wasnt to tuff to find

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wgtimus2w.htm

So exciting for you that you needed to post it twice?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You can slow the increase but you will not see a reduction in our life times

He may not, but there's a pretty good chance I will.

[Royd 0]

Quote

In the end...does it really matter?

Does it TRULY matter?

What will it take to cause people to treat the earth better? If there was unequivocal evidence that humanity was indeed ruining this planet, would you change then? Or would we continue to argue?

What sort of evidence would you need, deniers, to decide to change? Give me examples here, because all I ever see is the same "it's not real and here's why". So look at it from the other side. What, for YOU, would MAKE it real? If one day you woke up and took two steps, then passed out from lack of oxygen? You turned on your faucet and nothing came out? You drove your car to the gas station and it was closed...they were all closed for lack of supply?

What would it take? And would it be too late?

Then I ask you, tell me the harm in changing NOW. Tell me. What is the harm in changing NOW?

Sadly, the same people who demand that we all change our lifestyles, are now getting a taste of a wish come true.
They wanted skyhigh fuel prices so that we would all drive less, thus protecting the precious environment. The problem is that they just didn't look down the road far enough.
They insist on biofuels, so farmers see an opportunity to make big money growing corn that is basically inedible, except for livestock, but since the govt. is willing to pay subsidies to grow it, they are now converting land for edible grains, which we need to live, into fuel grains.

Great for farmers, not so great for the person wanting to make a sandwich.
You can bet that a large percentage of those insisting on change, have never planted a garden, pulled eggs out from under an angry hen or milked a cow, and most consider such things below them.

The day is coming when food will be the legal tender.

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

Quote

rush, you still avoided my question. let me restate.

What type of scientific evidence would cause you to change? What proof? From which "expert?" Go on, give it a go...make a stab at answering.

I did. You just dont like my answer.

Any proof will be considered. But since there is not anytodate you have nothing either..


FYI
Snarky does not become you

*sigh*

"any proof"? that's not an answer. i'm looking for specifics.

All right. let me re-form my question once again. By what criteria do you judge "evidence" in this debate? What sort of "proof" will you take to be enough?

Do you understand my question now?

When you make a statement like "any proof will be considered," that leads me to believe that you have SOME criteria for judging whether that "proof" is indeed....um...proof. So what is it? what do you use to judge whether something holds water?

I'm not being snarky. I just want to know.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The day is coming when food will be the legal tender.

In America? Chuteless's armaggedon will come sooner.

[billvon 2,991]

>You switch paths and points to what purpose?

It is called "discussion." It doesn't have much purpose, actually. I have no illusions you will learn anything from what is discussed here.

>The price of crude is NOT what we are talking about.

RushMC: "when and where was oil first discovered and produced?"
RushMC: "there is plenty of oil."

You sure talk about oil a lot for someone who isn't talking about it.

>But since you want to talk about it, more of it (via drilling) would
>make it cheaper dont you think?

Not per your statements. You said "we have plenty of oil." Unless you were lying, then we don't need to drill ANWR to increase our supply; we have plenty.

[billvon 2,991]

> They insist on biofuels, so farmers see an opportunity to make
>big money growing corn that is basically inedible, except for livestock, but
> since the govt. is willing to pay subsidies to grow it, they are now
>converting land for edible grains, which we need to live, into fuel grains.

You have made a good observation; the grain we are growing for ethanol is grain that would otherwise be used for cattle feed or HFCS (i.e. Pepsi.) Which means that less grain-fed beef and Pepsi will be available, or more accurately will cost more. This, overall, is a good thing for americans.

It's not a good thing outside the US, though. Which is why we should be switching to cellulosic ethanol as quickly as we can.

[Remster 30]

Quote

What profits? We have a record spending deficit.

Revenue, profits....

Debt, deficit....

They are all very complicated concepts.

Remster

[Royd 0]

> They insist on biofuels, so farmers see an opportunity to make
>big money growing corn that is basically inedible, except for livestock, but
> since the govt. is willing to pay subsidies to grow it, they are now
>converting land for edible grains, which we need to live, into fuel grains.

Quote

You have made a good observation; the grain we are growing for ethanol is grain that would otherwise be used for cattle feed or HFCS (i.e. Pepsi.) Which means that less grain-fed beef and Pepsi will be available, or more accurately will cost more. This, overall, is a good thing for americans.

I suppose if you look at it healthwise, yes. The problem is that land is being taken away from legume crops, also, which is essential for a proper vegetarian diet.
It seems that the environmentalist extremists are winning the battle, although eventually, to their own chagrin.
We are now hung up on biofuel and its advancement, yet we've thrown away forty years worth of possible growth in the nuclear industry. At this point in the game, our electric bills could have been $20 a month, and we could even afford to drive electric cars. We won't be able to afford that with the methods of producing today's electricity, unless you live near Hoover Dam.
Why again, are we leaving oil in the ground, anywhere? Is it to show our great grandchildren what an undisturbed oil patch looks like?
Once again, shortsighted environmentalists are standing in the way of technological advancment.
The fact is that there is plenty of ground that has not even been looked at for the possiblity of oil.
We have lots of natural gas off the west coast of Fl. and the political clowns on both sides of the aisle are worried about some tourist seeing a drilling rig 20 miles offshore.
First, you won't be able to see one twenty miles away, and second, I think the national fuel concern is more important than state tourist dollars, regardless of how vital they are to the state economy.

Quote

It's not a good thing outside the US, though. Which is why we should be switching to cellulosic ethanol as quickly as we can.

The hugest waste of land are the right of ways and medians on interstates. Those could be leased to farmers for the growth of such products, leaving the good land for food production.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The [biggest] waste of land are the right of ways and medians on interstates. Those could be leased to farmers for the growth of such products, leaving the good land for food production.

I agree that some medians are an un-utilized growing space for biofuel production, especially for grasses to produce cellulose. I also think there should be an easy way to efficiently obtain and process lawn clippings for ethanol production. I don't think either action would make a big dent in the growing demand for biofuel crops, but both could contribute, provided marginal cost could be kept sufficiently low.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Compare the total $$ supposedly made by Gore and others who are claimed to benefit from GW, with the total $$ known to be made by those who gain from preserving the status quo, and report back to us which is bigger.

"That'd be the government, Bob"

Fed.gov received twice the amount of money in gas taxes that those EEEEVIL oil companies did in profits.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1139.html

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Compare the total $$ supposedly made by Gore and others who are claimed to benefit from GW, with the total $$ known to be made by those who gain from preserving the status quo, and report back to us which is bigger.

"That'd be the government, Bob"

Fed.gov received twice the amount of money in gas taxes that those EEEEVIL oil companies did in profits.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1139.html

You are confusing revenue with profit.

How large was the government's budget surplus last year? How large is it anticipated to be this year?

FYI, those gas taxes go primarily to build and maintain roads. It's not as though tax revenue just goes into the personal bank accounts of Congressmen.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Compare the total $$ supposedly made by Gore and others who are claimed to benefit from GW, with the total $$ known to be made by those who gain from preserving the status quo, and report back to us which is bigger.

"That'd be the government, Bob"

Fed.gov received twice the amount of money in gas taxes that those EEEEVIL oil companies did in profits.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1139.html

So you are CONFIRMING that there is much more money to be made by denying global warming than by trying to do something about it. That's progress, I guess.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Compare the total $$ supposedly made by Gore and others who are claimed to benefit from GW, with the total $$ known to be made by those who gain from preserving the status quo, and report back to us which is bigger.

"That'd be the government, Bob"

Fed.gov received twice the amount of money in gas taxes that those EEEEVIL oil companies did in profits.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1139.html

So you are CONFIRMING that there is much more money to be made by denying global warming than by trying to do something about it. That's progress, I guess.

Hmm, let's see... Fed.gov is pushing global warming and is making twice the money from fuel taxes than the oil companies are... and that's proof that more money is made denying gw?

Only in bizarro world, I guess...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Compare the total $$ supposedly made by Gore and others who are claimed to benefit from GW, with the total $$ known to be made by those who gain from preserving the status quo, and report back to us which is bigger.

"That'd be the government, Bob"

Fed.gov received twice the amount of money in gas taxes that those EEEEVIL oil companies did in profits.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1139.html

So you are CONFIRMING that there is much more money to be made by denying global warming than by trying to do something about it. That's progress, I guess.

Hmm, let's see... Fed.gov is pushing global warming and is making twice the money from fuel taxes than the oil companies are... and that's proof that more money is made denying gw?

Only in bizarro world, I guess...

You really are not stupid, so stop pretending.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Exampled by the fact that if you dont agree with them you cant learn, or more to the point, you cant know anything. Please see below

Quote

It is called "discussion." It doesn't have much purpose, actually. I have no illusions you will learn anything from what is discussed here.

Quote

Dam(n) nice sir

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln