| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
MitchMan, Yea, I see. And you'll see also, but then maybe you won't. Know you've heard this before "You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're
not entitled to your own facts." The facts are out there, I'm not gonna waste my time providing the research info for you to debunk. Obama's
desperate, too little too late. He's a one termer and he's gonna take a lot of Dem. cronies down with him. Wishing you a happy landing.
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
There you go again. You guys never, I mean, never back up what you say. You consider providing back up as a "waste of time"? Come on, you have
posted 6,407 posts, you've proven that you have plenty of time on your hands.
Posting 6,407 with only accusations and no proof, no supporting facts, just assertions and opinions is not a waste of time? Wasting time is making
'drive by' accusations and then asking everyone to take your word for it. Wasting time is doing that 6,407 times.
| Quote: | | "You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts." |
Cypress, you're not
making sense again. Facts don't belong to anyone. Facts are items of reality and, as such, are not subject to being someone's creation or subject to
ownership, let alone by one person. Everybody has the right to the facts.
Now, opinions can be owned, but with opinions comes some intellectual responsibility. How can you expect to have any integrity and credibility if you
refuse to support your contentions, your accusations?
If you want to stop wasting your time and everyone else's, try making a coherent point, standing your ground with fact instead of more accusation like
you did in your last post hereto.
BTW, Obama doesn't look desperate but Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul sure do.
[Edited on 2-24-2012 by MitchMan]
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Consider trying to answer these questions, the answers may surprise you.
Is Oil biotic or abiotic?
Is oil a fossil fuel or not?
Where does oil come from? what is it made of?
Where is oil found? to what depths? In what type of locations?
Are oil reserves increasing or decreasing?
Do capped wells refill and begin to produce oil again?
Is oil being produced by the earth or is it non-replenishable?
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7390
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
Fill up your RV tanks now and get ready for more pain at the pump.
"Iran has expanded sensitive nuclear work: U.N. agency"
"U.S. crude futures extended a rally on the IAEA's findings, which added to concerns that Iran's tensions with the West would escalate. It gained more
than $2 to hit the highest intraday price in nine months."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/24/us-nuclear-iran-ia...
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
SFandH ... glad someone else saw that ...
Maybe we can use the spent fuel for _____________ and do't even think they® found to many State who wants "it" ... at this time....
"For low-level waste, three commercial land disposal facilities are available, but they accept waste only from certain states or accept only limited
types of low-level wastes. The remainder of the low-level waste is stored primarily at the site where it was produced, such as at hospitals, research
facilities, clinics and nuclear power plants."
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochur...
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Be wary of reports of threats from Iran. Do you recall any recent cases where elevated reports of a threat from a middle eastern country turned out to
be false?
It may be necessary to read the IAEA report yourself to understand the report as opposed to a summary?
Consider what type of nuclear work is occurring, the type of uranium enrichment and who deserves the right to create nuclear energy, anyone, no-one?
USA, Israel, how many weapons, how many bombs?
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7390
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by gnukid
Be wary of reports of threats from Iran. Do you recall any recent cases where elevated reports of a threat from a middle eastern country turned out to
be false?
It may be necessary to read the IAEA report yourself to understand the report as opposed to a summary?
Consider what type of nuclear work is occurring, the type of uranium enrichment and who deserves the right to create nuclear energy, anyone, no-one?
USA, Israel, how many weapons, how many bombs? |
You're right, I'm worried that the IAEA is a reincarnation of the truth troubled troika of the recent past, just itching for another profitable war.
Type of enrichment? Any type that leads to 90% HEU is worrisome. According to what I've read they're up to 20% now as evidenced by the recent
refueling of their research reactor. Also read they've been caught with traces of 90% HEU on the equipment they purchased for enrichment, which
indicates the capability of the equipment.
I think they are on their way to seeking admission to the nuclear club, probably thanks to Pakistan, the keepers of the "Islamic nukes" as they call
their beloved bombs. Read about A. Q. Khan, a Pakistani.
Do we let them in or have another freakin' war?
Got a link to the report?
Anyway, regardless of the veracity of the ayatollah nuke news, it's making for expensive fill-ups, which is what this thread is about.
[Edited on 2-24-2012 by SFandH]
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
The nuke story is a distraction from a basic discussion about oil, it's sources and the economics.
As you've noted, Israel, Pakistan and the USA have thousands thousands of nuke and poor record of managing them, while Iran is a sovereign state who
may have enriched uranium to 20% which is not significant to make weapons so they are not a threat.
I almost every case related to this subject, the threat was created by the USA and then pointed to as a threat, which is the problem-reaction-solution
method constantly to gain power, profit and control.
People need to use common sense, remove the fear mindset, hypocracy and non-sense and think clearly about what is oil, where does it come from, is
abiotic, is it a fossil fuel or not, does it come from magma at the earth's core or from organic material that died at the surface.
Begin to look at the economics, how many reserves? Who profits from Oil? Who is promotong the threat in the middle east? Has the threat panned out as
noted with WMD's in Iraq? Libya, Syria?
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Oil: is it abiotic, not a fossil fuel
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/why-does-abio...
http://viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html
http://open.salon.com/blog/veteranschmeteran/2010/05/10/gulf...
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/09/14/abi...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdSjyvIHVLw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHD4U2q_p4c
[Edited on 2-25-2012 by gnukid]
[Edited on 2-25-2012 by gnukid]
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
gnukid, Interesting.
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 65278
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
Yah and we keep discovering more... like under North Dakota... DRILL BABY DRILL! Gives us plenty of time until we can master cold fusion or dilithium
crystals for endless 'clean' energy to power our needs!
|
|
|
coloradoboardheads
Newbie
Posts: 20
Registered: 12-6-2008
Member Is Offline
|
|
David K wrote
| Quote: |
Yah and we keep discovering more... like under North Dakota... DRILL BABY DRILL! Gives us plenty of time until we can master cold fusion or dilithium
crystals for endless 'clean' energy to power our needs!
|
So you think the oil companies that extract the N.Dak oil will sell us oil at $75. per barrel if the Euros will pay $100? Or are you suggesting
nationalizing the oil industry?
|
|
|
coloradoboardheads
Newbie
Posts: 20
Registered: 12-6-2008
Member Is Offline
|
|
David K
I didn't think the government made a profit on anything! Roads do come in handy.
You are wrong on the pipeline. The purpose is to transport Canadian oil to refineries that specialize in production of diesel which is going to be
sold in Europe.
Currently, the bottlenecked transport of oil from Canada and North Dakota is providing a surplus of oil in the midwest which is actually driving
prices down there.
The Canadian oil companies want to make a better profit by being able to more readily sell their product worldwide.
Again, I am not opposed to the pipeline or Canadia oil profits. I own Vallero stocks.
But, don't believe this pipeline or N. Dak. oil will have a drastic impact on domestic energy prices.
|
|
|
generubin
Junior Nomad
Posts: 41
Registered: 12-19-2003
Location: Ventura, CA
Member Is Offline
|
|
The pipeline to Texas would have raised USA gasoline prices. It would have rerouted oil that is now piped to Illinois for USA consumption to the Texas
refineries that sell it to Europe. That pipeline was all about exporting oil, nothing more, nothing less.
From Baja to the Sahara to the Arctic and all places in between.
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 65278
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by coloradoboardheads
David K
I didn't think the government made a profit on anything! Roads do come in handy.
You are wrong on the pipeline. The purpose is to transport Canadian oil to refineries that specialize in production of diesel which is going to be
sold in Europe.
Currently, the bottlenecked transport of oil from Canada and North Dakota is providing a surplus of oil in the midwest which is actually driving
prices down there.
The Canadian oil companies want to make a better profit by being able to more readily sell their product worldwide.
Again, I am not opposed to the pipeline or Canadia oil profits. I own Vallero stocks.
But, don't believe this pipeline or N. Dak. oil will have a drastic impact on domestic energy prices. |
Profit is money earned on the sale above the cost of production... The 'rich, big oil' companies make about a dime a gallon in profit and the
government takes about 3 times that (that the consumer, ie. 'us' pays)... plus it taxes the income of these corporations (which again is always paid
by the consumer)!
Roads? Roads were better when gas was closer to 50 cents a gallon (1975)!
I have no problem with an America first program in the case of our natural resources... If we contract with the oil companies that they get the
pipeline as long as domestic gasoline and diesel needs were to come ahead of foreign needs.
|
|
|
djh
Senior Nomad
Posts: 936
Registered: 1-2-2005
Location: Earth mostly. Loreto, N. ID, Big Island
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mellow fellow, plays a yellow cello...
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by mtgoat666
| Quote: | Originally posted by Roberto
This is where I am REALLY happy to work in TJ a couple days a week. I also have changed the stock tank on my truck, and have two (not in the bed)
tanks for a total of 95 gallons. I also have an in-bed auxiliary 105 gallon tank, which I don't normally carry. That's going to change. 200 gallons
means I don't have to fuel for months. |
200 gallons? who wants to drive around town carrying 1,600 pounds of fuel? i would rather pay a bit more for fuel than drive around with 4 drums of
fuel in my car  |
Some places.... That's called a car bomb, eh?  . 
Its all just stuff and some numbers.
A day spent sailing isn\'t deducted from one\'s life.
Peace, Love, and Music
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
David K, I need a little help here. You say that the "government makes over 30 cents a gallon profit... (about 3 times more than the oil
companies)...". The government makes a profit? The oil companies make only 10 cents per gallon of profit? Please explain. Maybe you can point me to
some references (?)
Not disputing what you write, just would like to learn some info here and make sure that I truly understand what you are actually saying.
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 19921
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
let's increase the fuel taxes!
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
What I think is that the U.S. Government should stop making a greater profit off the sale of gasoline than the oil companies who do the work to get it
to us!
If the government really wanted to lower the price, it could... Government makes over 30 cents a gallon profit (about 3 times more than the oil
companies) |
DK: fuel tax is not a government profit. the US govt does not generate a profit. in case you have not heard, government is non-profit, and currently
spending more than revenue (so in "DK-speak," govt is operating in the red, experiencing a loss)
motor fuel taxes are great way to fund roads and highways. the biggest users of fuel are people driving heavy vehicles or long distances. perfect
cost allocation method. biggest fuel consumers pay most taxes. your tax payments are proportional to your driving as measured by fuel consumption.
it is perhaps a perfect tax! what else could you ask for? fuel tax is not a profit, capiche?
i also support using fuel tax to change peoples fuel consumption habits. i would support an increase in fuel tax jusst to encourage conservation. i
think conservation is good for the USA in the long term. no one thinks conservation is bad. but the sad reality is that people act in selfish ways,
so conservation will not occur via the carrot but will occur via the stick. oftentimes tax policy is used to implement social policy that is good for
the USA, so let's increase the motor fuel taxes! 
p.s. the oli companies make plenty of profit, have not seen them show a loss for quite a while -- heck, even my BP stock only took a short hiatus in
paying dividends!
[Edited on 2-25-2012 by mtgoat666]
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 19921
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
this was in todays paper...
| Quote: |
The USA is at a critical juncture in how it pays for roads, bridges and transit. That's because the federal tax on gasoline, the primary method since
1956, has lost one-third of its buying power since it was last raised in 1993. States add their own tax on top of that, but the federal tax accounts
for about 45%-50% of capital spending for transportation.
The federal gas tax — 18.4 cents a gallon for gasoline, 24.4 cents for diesel — is growing anemic because of more fuel-efficient vehicles, Americans
driving fewer miles and the growth of electric and alternative-fuel vehicles. The tax rate on gasohol and most other special fuels is much less.
"It no longer works as our primary source," says Jim Burnley, a Washington, D.C., transportation attorney who was Transportation secretary for
President Reagan. "We're going to have to figure out, as a country, other mechanisms." |
|
|
|
coloradoboardheads
Newbie
Posts: 20
Registered: 12-6-2008
Member Is Offline
|
|
Federal Excise tax on a gallon of gas is 18 cents. Same as 1992. And yet, bridges cost over twice what they did then. Sounds like Obama has done
a great job keeping taxes on fuel down! (Hey, if you're gonna blame him for everything..)
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
