<VV> Re: Fool fuel

[Tony Underwood]

At 01:53 hours 02/25/2006, Padgett wrote:

>>NOT if the hardline environ-extremists lighten up and allow drilling
>>in US territories to divorce us from middle-east oil.
>
>Personally am all for keeping our reserves and importing as much as 
>possible so long as the price stays low (and anything under 
>$5/gallon is cheap energy) and we save ours for when everybody else 
>runs out.


But if you're talking about 5 bucks/gallon for *gasoline*, it's NOT 
cheap energy.    It would be damned expensive energy.

Too many people forget that the so-called "reasonable" cost of 
gasoline such as what's seen in Europe etc is also not real 
reasonable o0nce you figure the taxes that get added to the actual 
cost of the fuel.    Most of the price of a gallon of fuel there is 
taxes.    I absolutely LOVE it when somebody pipes up and talks about 
how "unfair" our gas prices are compared to what Europeans etc pay.

I guess this is a subtle suggestion from those thoughtful souls that 
we should also tax the HELL out of fuels sold here as well... so we 
can get "in line" with the Europeans and pay out the ass for the 
privilege of being able to drive a car.    I've heard several 
politicians in High Places who went on record saying that "...we 
don't pay enough for gasoline in America".    Henry Ross Perot was 
one...   and HE was supposed to be a smart guy and I'm just a dumbass 
with Corvairs and *I* know that this notion is bullshit!    Gore i9s 
another who would like to see gas priced the way it  is in Europe... 
via TAXES of course.

It's not bad enough that there are people in those same High Places 
who take a dim view of the car hobby... via "clunker laws" etc but 
they also wanna cripple our economy via loading up the cost of a 
gallon of fuel to double what it is now by taxing it to the hilt.

And WHO would garner the results of this tax load on 
gasoline?     (that's a rhetorical question; we all know where the 
money would go)

Also consider that the USA is a net exporter of gasoline.    We sell 
more than we use ourselves.    Our overseas partners who buy this 
fuel don't sweat the cost that much; they know they'll sell every 
gallon at better than twice what they paid for it.

The USA also has a rather large strategic reserve of oil...  bought 
up when crude was selling on the free market for less than 20 
bucks/barrel.   There's a LOT of it stashed away.    That's gonna be 
there for some time.

However, the untapped quantity we have here within our own national 
borders is quite significant and if we were allowed to pump the 
stuff, we'd not need to worry about being held hostage over 
middle-eastern oil.    Now, what would be better...  bleed our own 
economy via buying Arabian crude at high prices, or wean ourselves 
off by exploiting our own considerable resources *right here at 
home*?    ANWR itself is capable of eliminating the need for Arabian 
crude for as much as 20-30 years.

That pack of nitwits who continue to lobby against touching it 
because it could spoil a segment of the environment of the tundra 
mosquito are guaranteeing that we will continue to have to import oil.


Somebody, ANYBODY, tell me in words that a ten year old can 
understand, how this makes sense.


They're doing it to promote their own agenda... NOT to improve 
anything involving our economy or our productivity.    THAT is wrong.



>There is also the small matter that not all oil is suitable for 
>gasoline, some is usable only for diesel and bunker fuels.

It's worth noting that this is no small deal.   Gasoline is only a 
fraction of what's necessary for our own industrial 
productivity.   Diesels and heavy fuel oils provide a huge percentage 
of the power that the economy demands... as you well know, but others 
might not realize.



>Dunno if true but was once told that is why we export most of the 
>Alaskan oil brought down by the pipeline to the far east, it is not 
>suitable for even poor gasoline.

Well...  there's a demand for it in the other pacific Rim industries 
and they pay well for it... it must be good for *Something*.    I've 
not heard much about its not being good for fuels; if it wasn't, why 
has so much of the Alaskan oil been pumped?    It hasn't been all 
that long that much of it has been sold on the open markets.   Before 
that, it was refined and used here, especially in the late '70s 
through the '80s when it made a big dent in our demands for oil.


>As to gasahol, that is money spent here instead of there and stays 
>in the Amurricn economy.

...hopefully it's going to become more cost-efficient.   Every little 
bit helps, although it helps more if it costs less.   That would be a 
one-two punch towards cutting our dependence on any oil that comes 
from somewhere else.



> From a marketting standpoint, does the corn that would be used 
> being diverted from another demand or is it surplus ? Would it be 
> edible if not made into gasahol (a lot of corn is suitable only for 
> feedlots and some, not even for that). True cost depends on many 
> many factors.


It's my understanding that most of the corn actually grown here is 
feedstock.   And, there's room for more.


>Point I am trying to make is that the "price of gas" is a very 
>complex subject particularly when discussing alternate fuels. Just 
>comparing the production costs or "net energy" really does not say 
>very much but the fact is that from an energy efficiency standpoint, 
>gasoline engines are terrible but still cheap in total cost to run.


The point for everyone to remember here is that our economy is 
configured to operate on oil and it's been fine tuned to the N'th 
degree to do so.   Trying to change horses in mid-stream would be not 
only fruitless, it would be a disaster.    Like it or not, we will 
continue to require oil for a majority  of our motive power for the 
next 20 or more years, even with a concerted effort to develop 
alternatives...  which ARE being researched vigorously.

Those who would ride the Gore bandwagon would do well to consider 
that before ranting about the "damage to the planet" (which is 
actually negligible compared to other industrial pollutions from 
other nations *we* cannot control) we should be worrying about the 
damage to our economy if the steps outlined in Gore's "Saving The 
Planet" are taken  seriously.

I sometimes seriously lean towards believing that these 
environmentalist extremists would rather see the USA crash into a 3rd 
world nation status in order to satisfy their  demands to see their 
"vision" become reality... via government mandate, of course... 
courtesy of their lobby groups and back-room deals and concessions 
and influence peddling.

It's already hurting us now, via inflated prices for not only 
gasoline but diesel and heavy fuel oils...  with a lot of people not 
only finding it harder (considerably harder) to stay warm in winter 
but they're having to pay more for goods which cost more to deliver 
to retailers because diesel fuel has doubled in price.


...and we still don't have any new high efficiency refineries under 
construction.   "Not in my back yard!" say the local activists... and 
"Not anywhere!" according to the extreme environmentalists... and 
it's US who will be paying the penalties for our leaders' lack of 
vision.


tony..