"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:33:10 -0800, Calif Bill penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


"HK" wrote in message
m...
Tim wrote:
But don't we all...


http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/07/news...ices/index.htm


You don't like being taken to the cleaners as a result of a "secret"
national energy policy and collusion between "big oil" and the Arab
states?


Also the fact that the NIMBY's will not let new oil refineries be built.
That the refineries can not find enough Certified Welders to do the
upgrades
needed. Maybe we need to ****can the teachers unions and administrators
that think all students should be College Prep track.

You need to do a bit of fact checking. The oil companies, themselves,
have decreased the number of refineries. Check and see how many there
were 30 years ago and see how many we have, now.

Bean counters know that you can enhance profits by *artificially
creating* a higher demand. Add that to a demand that *is* increasing
and you have $3/gal. gasoline.

And here's another one..... why is diesel fuel $3.50?

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 071221-0, 12/21/2007
Tested on: 12/22/2007 11:24:16 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com



I agree. In this city two of the three oil refineries shut down and
dismantled in the last 20 years.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:27:03 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:

Average welder,
especially in the petroleum industry is probably knocking down a $60-70k
/ year salary without overtime.

Like I said, it's supply and demand. If there is a shortage of welders,
pay more.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:32:52 -0500, HK wrote:

It doesn't matter...we're headed for $4.00 a gallon gasoline.

I ihghly doubt that we will see that in the next 5 to 10 years. Maybe
a disruption might cause it, but not now.

On a completely different note:

Are you
denying that Dicque Cheney held "secret" national energy policy meetings
with big oil that to this day are a closely held secret of the
administration? What do you think they discussed? How to help the
American consumer, or how to fleece the consumer and increase corporate
profits

I don't know what was discussed - I wasn't there.

And neither were you.

I would assume that price was discussed - it would seem to me to be a
natural point to start the discussion.

However I would point out to you that none other than your own St.
Gore proposed a doubling of gasoline prices (by a combination of
wholesale price rise and taxattion) as a way to keep the use of
gasoline limited thus reducing emissions - I think he called it an
environmental and economic win-win.

"Earth in the Balance - Ecology and the Human Spirit", ISBN
0-452-26935-0, 1992. Strangely he stayed away from this policy
statement in his "Inconvienent Truth" which was based almost entirely
on "Earth in the Balance".

So if the effect of the "conspiracy" is exactly what St. Gore and the
environmentalist lobby have wanted all along, isn't that a good thing?

Or is the problem that it was accomplished by somebody other than a
Democrat?

On it's face, if you were a conspiracy theorist (not that you are of
course) it would seem to be the perfect storm, if you will, of Big Oil
getting theirs (more money) and environmentalists getting theirs (less
gasoline use). Oh, let's not leave the auto makers out of this
because they will be subsidized to "solve" the economy problem thus
getting theirs.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:32:52 -0500, HK wrote:

It doesn't matter...we're headed for $4.00 a gallon gasoline.

I ihghly doubt that we will see that in the next 5 to 10 years. Maybe
a disruption might cause it, but not now.

On a completely different note:

Are you
denying that Dicque Cheney held "secret" national energy policy meetings
with big oil that to this day are a closely held secret of the
administration? What do you think they discussed? How to help the
American consumer, or how to fleece the consumer and increase corporate
profits

I don't know what was discussed - I wasn't there.

And neither were you.

I would assume that price was discussed - it would seem to me to be a
natural point to start the discussion.

However I would point out to you that none other than your own St.
Gore proposed a doubling of gasoline prices (by a combination of
wholesale price rise and taxattion) as a way to keep the use of
gasoline limited thus reducing emissions - I think he called it an
environmental and economic win-win.

"Earth in the Balance - Ecology and the Human Spirit", ISBN
0-452-26935-0, 1992. Strangely he stayed away from this policy
statement in his "Inconvienent Truth" which was based almost entirely
on "Earth in the Balance".

So if the effect of the "conspiracy" is exactly what St. Gore and the
environmentalist lobby have wanted all along, isn't that a good thing?

Or is the problem that it was accomplished by somebody other than a
Democrat?

On it's face, if you were a conspiracy theorist (not that you are of
course) it would seem to be the perfect storm, if you will, of Big Oil
getting theirs (more money) and environmentalists getting theirs (less
gasoline use). Oh, let's not leave the auto makers out of this
because they will be subsidized to "solve" the economy problem thus
getting theirs.

Well put, I think you missed your calling. Politics? :)

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:32:52 -0500, HK wrote:

It doesn't matter...we're headed for $4.00 a gallon gasoline.

I ihghly doubt that we will see that in the next 5 to 10 years. Maybe
a disruption might cause it, but not now.

On a completely different note:

Are you
denying that Dicque Cheney held "secret" national energy policy meetings
with big oil that to this day are a closely held secret of the
administration? What do you think they discussed? How to help the
American consumer, or how to fleece the consumer and increase corporate
profits

I don't know what was discussed - I wasn't there.

And neither were you.

I would assume that price was discussed - it would seem to me to be a
natural point to start the discussion.

However I would point out to you that none other than your own St.
Gore proposed a doubling of gasoline prices (by a combination of
wholesale price rise and taxattion) as a way to keep the use of
gasoline limited thus reducing emissions - I think he called it an
environmental and economic win-win.


If the money raised were properly spent on the development of
alternative fuels and on forced higher performance of vehicles, we'd be
way ahead of the game by now and beginning to lose our dependence upon
Muslim oil.

JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:32:52 -0500, HK wrote:

It doesn't matter...we're headed for $4.00 a gallon gasoline.
I ihghly doubt that we will see that in the next 5 to 10 years. Maybe
a disruption might cause it, but not now.

On a completely different note:

Are you denying that Dicque Cheney held "secret" national energy policy
meetings
with big oil that to this day are a closely held secret of the
administration? What do you think they discussed? How to help the
American consumer, or how to fleece the consumer and increase corporate
profits
I don't know what was discussed - I wasn't there.

And neither were you.

I would assume that price was discussed - it would seem to me to be a
natural point to start the discussion.

However I would point out to you that none other than your own St.
Gore proposed a doubling of gasoline prices (by a combination of
wholesale price rise and taxattion) as a way to keep the use of
gasoline limited thus reducing emissions - I think he called it an
environmental and economic win-win.

If the money raised were properly spent on the development of alternative
fuels and on forced higher performance of vehicles, we'd be way ahead of
the game by now and beginning to lose our dependence upon Muslim oil.

Why does the government have to pay for the research and development?




So the people own the technology and can license it to manufacturers or
processors who agree to reasonable profits, of course.

On Dec 22, 4:09*pm, "JimH" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

. ..





Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:32:52 -0500, HK wrote:

It doesn't matter...we're headed for $4.00 a gallon gasoline.

I ihghly doubt that we will see that in the next 5 to 10 years. *Maybe
a disruption might cause it, but not now.

On a completely different note:

Are you denying that Dicque Cheney held "secret" national energy policy
meetings
with big oil that to this day are a closely held secret of the
administration? What do you think they discussed? How to help the
American consumer, or how to fleece the consumer and increase corporate
profits

I don't know what was discussed - I wasn't there.

And neither were you.

I would assume that price was discussed - it would seem to me to be a
natural point to start the discussion.

However I would point out to you that none other than your own St.
Gore proposed a doubling of gasoline prices (by a combination of
wholesale price rise and taxattion) as a way to keep the use of
gasoline limited thus reducing emissions - I think he called it an
environmental and economic win-win.

If the money raised were properly spent on the development of alternative
fuels and on forced higher performance of vehicles, we'd be way ahead of
the game by now and beginning to lose our dependence upon Muslim oil.

Why does the government have to pay for the research and development?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jim, in a utopious, socialistic, society, isn't the government
supposed to pay for everything???

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:02:24 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:32:52 -0500, HK wrote:

It doesn't matter...we're headed for $4.00 a gallon gasoline.

I ihghly doubt that we will see that in the next 5 to 10 years. Maybe
a disruption might cause it, but not now.

On a completely different note:

Are you
denying that Dicque Cheney held "secret" national energy policy meetings
with big oil that to this day are a closely held secret of the
administration? What do you think they discussed? How to help the
American consumer, or how to fleece the consumer and increase corporate
profits

I don't know what was discussed - I wasn't there.

And neither were you.

I would assume that price was discussed - it would seem to me to be a
natural point to start the discussion.

However I would point out to you that none other than your own St.
Gore proposed a doubling of gasoline prices (by a combination of
wholesale price rise and taxattion) as a way to keep the use of
gasoline limited thus reducing emissions - I think he called it an
environmental and economic win-win.

If the money raised were properly spent on the development of
alternative fuels and on forced higher performance of vehicles, we'd be
way ahead of the game by now and beginning to lose our dependence upon
Muslim oil.

If the monied interests who keep us from exploring off the East and
West coast for the potential oil fields which could equal if not
surpass those in the Middle East, we'd be way ahead of the game by
now.

Think Brazil.

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So the people own the technology and can license it to manufacturers or
processors who agree to reasonable profits, of course.


I wonder if Richard received tax dollars to fund the startup of his
company and the research/development needed to get it off the ground?


I can assure you that Richard did not "receive" any tax dollars.
Quite the contrary.

Eisboch (Richard)

HK wrote:
Tim wrote:
But don't we all...


http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/07/news...ices/index.htm


You don't like being taken to the cleaners as a result of a "secret"
national energy policy and collusion between "big oil" and the Arab states?

Did you notice that the all-time high was $1.35/gallon on Jimmy Carter's
watch? That's $3.13 adjusted for inflation according to the article.