G
A
Andre
Guest
Although obviously a troll, I would have to agree. The bulk
of fossil fuels are expended in a ridiculous gridlock across
the continent. If people would get off their fat asses and
commute by bike, then the hapless US troops could be pulled
out of harm's way in Iraq. Don't flame me for this. You know
it's true.
--
--------------------------
Andre Charlebois AGC-PC support http://agc-pc.tripod.com
BPE, MCSE4.0, CNA, A+
"g.daniels" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> end of message
of fossil fuels are expended in a ridiculous gridlock across
the continent. If people would get off their fat asses and
commute by bike, then the hapless US troops could be pulled
out of harm's way in Iraq. Don't flame me for this. You know
it's true.
--
--------------------------
Andre Charlebois AGC-PC support http://agc-pc.tripod.com
BPE, MCSE4.0, CNA, A+
"g.daniels" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> end of message
M
Mseries
Guest
B
Bestest Handsan
Guest
"carlfogel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> G.Daniels wrote:
> > end of message
>
>
>
> Dear Gene,
>
> Us bicyclists are whiny, snobbish parasites.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
Wow! I guess that makes me a gas sucking whiny, snobbish
parasitic bike pedaling energy pig.
I put in 24 miles a day in the truck and 30+ miles a day (5
days a week) on the bike.
news:[email protected]...
> G.Daniels wrote:
> > end of message
>
>
>
> Dear Gene,
>
> Us bicyclists are whiny, snobbish parasites.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
Wow! I guess that makes me a gas sucking whiny, snobbish
parasitic bike pedaling energy pig.
I put in 24 miles a day in the truck and 30+ miles a day (5
days a week) on the bike.
R
Reuben Hick
Guest
"Andre" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Although obviously a troll, I would have to agree. The
> bulk of fossil
fuels
> are expended in a ridiculous gridlock across the
> continent.
Which the US Interstate and rail systems are remarkably
efficient compared to what was available before. This
"gridlock" which you have contempt for, is also used to
ferry the goods and services you consume. Ever try to
deliver refrigerated produce on a bicycle?
How about the animal lover who considers leather goods evil?
The substitute, plastics, are made from fossil fuels.
Fertilizers are made of fossil fuels, and the electricy that
is powering your computer so you can post your luddite views
is probably not functioning from a generator attached to
your bicycle, but you are consuming electricity made by
fossil fuels.
> If people would get off their fat asses and commute
> by bike...
Which is the mark of a backwards turd world country. Ever
hear of the rickshaw? Is that what you want the world to
regress to? Start your *****ing now at the Far East as they
discard such horribly inefficent modes of transportation and
enter the modern era and grab an increasing percentage of
the Midlle Eastern oil. If you hate technology, why are you
using a computer? Go back to your cold, dark cave and eat
whatever you can forage in your area, and dress with
whatever plant material you can stich together.
> then the hapless US troops could be pulled out of harm's
> way in Iraq.
What a great f'ing plan. Tear up a country and then leave it
especially when it is vulnerable so that some bevy of
warlords or hostile nation can swoop right on in and pick up
where Saddam Hussein left off. What humanitarianism you
have. Instead of introducing a country into the modern
world, you want everyone, particularly those with "fat
asses" to return to a primitive lifestyle ruled by
thoughtless tyrants.
Did it ever occur to you that in the Middle East, if it
wasn't for oil, those people would have nothing? Perhaps you
can list the non-petroleum exports they have (other than
terrorism). Lets talk about the industry that produces goods
and services that is there. that would be a brief
conversation. Other than pilgrims going to Mecca, what kind
of tourism industry is there?
You liberals need to get your stories straight. All along
you folks have been saying that the oil embargo against
Iraq is what caused all of their poverty, sickness and
despair. IOW, if they were able to export huge quantities
of oil, they would be all rich and pacific. So in the mind
of a liberal, Oil = Prosperity. Oil Emargo = Poverty. So
what is the difference between an oil embargo, that reduces
the consumption of oil, and using the barrel of a gun to
force people with "fat asses" to reduce their demand for
Iraqi oil?
I see the difference this way. You WANT people to live poor
and miserable lives. It bothers you that a free people can
have choices. You loathe those who disagree with you and you
wish that there was some mechanism in which you can force
your myopic views on others.
> Don't flame me for this. You know it's true.
You must live in a small world. In the course of a week, I
travel more than 600 miles. I don't think that Lance
Armstrong would attempt to travel that distance on a
bicycle each week for months on end. Ever hear of weather?
Do you really invision arthritic granny pedaling her
Schwinn several miles in bad weather to get her meds? Do
you really see in your Utopia a world where sales people
visit their clients, or where technicians who service their
accounts, or contractors who commute to their job sites do
so on the bicycle?
Don't you know that a bicycle is highly inefficient? The
cost per mile of a bicycle (when you consider the cost of
fuel - Food vs Petroleum) is much higher. I can load-up my
motorcycle with 80 lbs of cargo and travel 200 miles on $6
worth of fuel. I will get to my destination in three
hours. How cheaply can you do that on your bicycle? How
many days will it take? Will you sleep on the side of the
road or spend money on lodging? Do you value your time
spent? How cheaply can someone who is not as phyically fit
as you do it?
Or will you, in your infinite wisdom, decide by fiat who is
worthy enough to travel by motor vehicle and who is deemed
unworthy and is forced to commute by foot or pedal?
news:[email protected]...
> Although obviously a troll, I would have to agree. The
> bulk of fossil
fuels
> are expended in a ridiculous gridlock across the
> continent.
Which the US Interstate and rail systems are remarkably
efficient compared to what was available before. This
"gridlock" which you have contempt for, is also used to
ferry the goods and services you consume. Ever try to
deliver refrigerated produce on a bicycle?
How about the animal lover who considers leather goods evil?
The substitute, plastics, are made from fossil fuels.
Fertilizers are made of fossil fuels, and the electricy that
is powering your computer so you can post your luddite views
is probably not functioning from a generator attached to
your bicycle, but you are consuming electricity made by
fossil fuels.
> If people would get off their fat asses and commute
> by bike...
Which is the mark of a backwards turd world country. Ever
hear of the rickshaw? Is that what you want the world to
regress to? Start your *****ing now at the Far East as they
discard such horribly inefficent modes of transportation and
enter the modern era and grab an increasing percentage of
the Midlle Eastern oil. If you hate technology, why are you
using a computer? Go back to your cold, dark cave and eat
whatever you can forage in your area, and dress with
whatever plant material you can stich together.
> then the hapless US troops could be pulled out of harm's
> way in Iraq.
What a great f'ing plan. Tear up a country and then leave it
especially when it is vulnerable so that some bevy of
warlords or hostile nation can swoop right on in and pick up
where Saddam Hussein left off. What humanitarianism you
have. Instead of introducing a country into the modern
world, you want everyone, particularly those with "fat
asses" to return to a primitive lifestyle ruled by
thoughtless tyrants.
Did it ever occur to you that in the Middle East, if it
wasn't for oil, those people would have nothing? Perhaps you
can list the non-petroleum exports they have (other than
terrorism). Lets talk about the industry that produces goods
and services that is there. that would be a brief
conversation. Other than pilgrims going to Mecca, what kind
of tourism industry is there?
You liberals need to get your stories straight. All along
you folks have been saying that the oil embargo against
Iraq is what caused all of their poverty, sickness and
despair. IOW, if they were able to export huge quantities
of oil, they would be all rich and pacific. So in the mind
of a liberal, Oil = Prosperity. Oil Emargo = Poverty. So
what is the difference between an oil embargo, that reduces
the consumption of oil, and using the barrel of a gun to
force people with "fat asses" to reduce their demand for
Iraqi oil?
I see the difference this way. You WANT people to live poor
and miserable lives. It bothers you that a free people can
have choices. You loathe those who disagree with you and you
wish that there was some mechanism in which you can force
your myopic views on others.
> Don't flame me for this. You know it's true.
You must live in a small world. In the course of a week, I
travel more than 600 miles. I don't think that Lance
Armstrong would attempt to travel that distance on a
bicycle each week for months on end. Ever hear of weather?
Do you really invision arthritic granny pedaling her
Schwinn several miles in bad weather to get her meds? Do
you really see in your Utopia a world where sales people
visit their clients, or where technicians who service their
accounts, or contractors who commute to their job sites do
so on the bicycle?
Don't you know that a bicycle is highly inefficient? The
cost per mile of a bicycle (when you consider the cost of
fuel - Food vs Petroleum) is much higher. I can load-up my
motorcycle with 80 lbs of cargo and travel 200 miles on $6
worth of fuel. I will get to my destination in three
hours. How cheaply can you do that on your bicycle? How
many days will it take? Will you sleep on the side of the
road or spend money on lodging? Do you value your time
spent? How cheaply can someone who is not as phyically fit
as you do it?
Or will you, in your infinite wisdom, decide by fiat who is
worthy enough to travel by motor vehicle and who is deemed
unworthy and is forced to commute by foot or pedal?
D
Denny
Guest
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:45:21 GMT, "Reuben Hick"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Andre" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:S-
>[email protected]...
>> Although obviously a troll, I would have to agree. The
>> bulk of fossil
>fuels
>> are expended in a ridiculous gridlock across the
>> continent.
>
>Which the US Interstate and rail systems are remarkably
>efficient compared to what was available before. This
>"gridlock" which you have contempt for, is also used to
>ferry the goods and services you consume. Ever try to
>deliver refrigerated produce on a bicycle?
>
>How about the animal lover who considers leather goods
>evil? The substitute, plastics, are made from fossil fuels.
>Fertilizers are made of fossil fuels, and the electricy
>that is powering your computer so you can post your luddite
>views is probably not functioning from a generator attached
>to your bicycle, but you are consuming electricity made by
>fossil fuels.
>
>> If people would get off their fat asses and commute by
>> bike...
>
>Which is the mark of a backwards turd world country. Ever
>hear of the rickshaw? Is that what you want the world to
>regress to? Start your *****ing now at the Far East as they
>discard such horribly inefficent modes of transportation
>and enter the modern era and grab an increasing percentage
>of the Midlle Eastern oil. If you hate technology, why are
>you using a computer? Go back to your cold, dark cave and
>eat whatever you can forage in your area, and dress with
>whatever plant material you can stich together.
>
>> then the hapless US troops could be pulled out of harm's
>> way in Iraq.
>
>What a great f'ing plan. Tear up a country and then leave
>it especially when it is vulnerable so that some bevy of
>warlords or hostile nation can swoop right on in and pick
>up where Saddam Hussein left off. What humanitarianism you
>have. Instead of introducing a country into the modern
>world, you want everyone, particularly those with "fat
>asses" to return to a primitive lifestyle ruled by
>thoughtless tyrants.
>
>Did it ever occur to you that in the Middle East, if it
>wasn't for oil, those people would have nothing? Perhaps
>you can list the non-petroleum exports they have (other
>than terrorism). Lets talk about the industry that produces
>goods and services that is there. that would be a brief
>conversation. Other than pilgrims going to Mecca, what kind
>of tourism industry is there?
>
>You liberals need to get your stories straight. All along
>you folks have been saying that the oil embargo against
>Iraq is what caused all of their poverty, sickness and
>despair. IOW, if they were able to export huge quantities
>of oil, they would be all rich and pacific. So in the mind
>of a liberal, Oil = Prosperity. Oil Emargo = Poverty. So
>what is the difference between an oil embargo, that reduces
>the consumption of oil, and using the barrel of a gun to
>force people with "fat asses" to reduce their demand for
>Iraqi oil?
>
>I see the difference this way. You WANT people to live poor
>and miserable lives. It bothers you that a free people can
>have choices. You loathe those who disagree with you and
>you wish that there was some mechanism in which you can
>force your myopic views on others.
>
>> Don't flame me for this. You know it's true.
>
>You must live in a small world. In the course of a week, I
>travel more than 600 miles. I don't think that Lance
>Armstrong would attempt to travel that distance on a
>bicycle each week for months on end. Ever hear of weather?
>Do you really invision arthritic granny pedaling her
>Schwinn several miles in bad weather to get her meds? Do
>you really see in your Utopia a world where sales people
>visit their clients, or where technicians who service their
>accounts, or contractors who commute to their job sites do
>so on the bicycle?
>
>Don't you know that a bicycle is highly inefficient? The
>cost per mile of a bicycle (when you consider the cost of
>fuel - Food vs Petroleum) is much higher. I can load-up my
>motorcycle with 80 lbs of cargo and travel 200 miles on $6
>worth of fuel. I will get to my destination in three
>hours. How cheaply can you do that on your bicycle? How
>many days will it take? Will you sleep on the side of the
>road or spend money on lodging? Do you value your time
>spent? How cheaply can someone who is not as phyically fit
>as you do it?
>
>Or will you, in your infinite wisdom, decide by fiat who is
>worthy enough to travel by motor vehicle and who is deemed
>unworthy and is forced to commute by foot or pedal?
>
Stop sugar coating it Reuben, tell us how you really feel !
Amen to all you say Bikes and autos both have a place, and a
Geo Metro won't get me into the hills of Colorado like my
4WD Toy pickup does. denny
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Andre" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:S-
>[email protected]...
>> Although obviously a troll, I would have to agree. The
>> bulk of fossil
>fuels
>> are expended in a ridiculous gridlock across the
>> continent.
>
>Which the US Interstate and rail systems are remarkably
>efficient compared to what was available before. This
>"gridlock" which you have contempt for, is also used to
>ferry the goods and services you consume. Ever try to
>deliver refrigerated produce on a bicycle?
>
>How about the animal lover who considers leather goods
>evil? The substitute, plastics, are made from fossil fuels.
>Fertilizers are made of fossil fuels, and the electricy
>that is powering your computer so you can post your luddite
>views is probably not functioning from a generator attached
>to your bicycle, but you are consuming electricity made by
>fossil fuels.
>
>> If people would get off their fat asses and commute by
>> bike...
>
>Which is the mark of a backwards turd world country. Ever
>hear of the rickshaw? Is that what you want the world to
>regress to? Start your *****ing now at the Far East as they
>discard such horribly inefficent modes of transportation
>and enter the modern era and grab an increasing percentage
>of the Midlle Eastern oil. If you hate technology, why are
>you using a computer? Go back to your cold, dark cave and
>eat whatever you can forage in your area, and dress with
>whatever plant material you can stich together.
>
>> then the hapless US troops could be pulled out of harm's
>> way in Iraq.
>
>What a great f'ing plan. Tear up a country and then leave
>it especially when it is vulnerable so that some bevy of
>warlords or hostile nation can swoop right on in and pick
>up where Saddam Hussein left off. What humanitarianism you
>have. Instead of introducing a country into the modern
>world, you want everyone, particularly those with "fat
>asses" to return to a primitive lifestyle ruled by
>thoughtless tyrants.
>
>Did it ever occur to you that in the Middle East, if it
>wasn't for oil, those people would have nothing? Perhaps
>you can list the non-petroleum exports they have (other
>than terrorism). Lets talk about the industry that produces
>goods and services that is there. that would be a brief
>conversation. Other than pilgrims going to Mecca, what kind
>of tourism industry is there?
>
>You liberals need to get your stories straight. All along
>you folks have been saying that the oil embargo against
>Iraq is what caused all of their poverty, sickness and
>despair. IOW, if they were able to export huge quantities
>of oil, they would be all rich and pacific. So in the mind
>of a liberal, Oil = Prosperity. Oil Emargo = Poverty. So
>what is the difference between an oil embargo, that reduces
>the consumption of oil, and using the barrel of a gun to
>force people with "fat asses" to reduce their demand for
>Iraqi oil?
>
>I see the difference this way. You WANT people to live poor
>and miserable lives. It bothers you that a free people can
>have choices. You loathe those who disagree with you and
>you wish that there was some mechanism in which you can
>force your myopic views on others.
>
>> Don't flame me for this. You know it's true.
>
>You must live in a small world. In the course of a week, I
>travel more than 600 miles. I don't think that Lance
>Armstrong would attempt to travel that distance on a
>bicycle each week for months on end. Ever hear of weather?
>Do you really invision arthritic granny pedaling her
>Schwinn several miles in bad weather to get her meds? Do
>you really see in your Utopia a world where sales people
>visit their clients, or where technicians who service their
>accounts, or contractors who commute to their job sites do
>so on the bicycle?
>
>Don't you know that a bicycle is highly inefficient? The
>cost per mile of a bicycle (when you consider the cost of
>fuel - Food vs Petroleum) is much higher. I can load-up my
>motorcycle with 80 lbs of cargo and travel 200 miles on $6
>worth of fuel. I will get to my destination in three
>hours. How cheaply can you do that on your bicycle? How
>many days will it take? Will you sleep on the side of the
>road or spend money on lodging? Do you value your time
>spent? How cheaply can someone who is not as phyically fit
>as you do it?
>
>Or will you, in your infinite wisdom, decide by fiat who is
>worthy enough to travel by motor vehicle and who is deemed
>unworthy and is forced to commute by foot or pedal?
>
Stop sugar coating it Reuben, tell us how you really feel !
Amen to all you say Bikes and autos both have a place, and a
Geo Metro won't get me into the hills of Colorado like my
4WD Toy pickup does. denny
G
G.T.
Guest
"Reuben Hick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> > If people would get off their fat asses and commute by
> > bike...
>
> Which is the mark of a backwards turd world country.
No, it's the mark of a well laid out country. If people
wouldn't be such pussies and live closer to work they would
ride or walk. Or at worst they would use mass transit like
some of the better planned cities in the US.
>
> Did it ever occur to you that in the Middle East, if it
> wasn't for oil, those people would have nothing?
You mean a few people wouldn't have the riches that they
have? The "people" still have nothing.
>
> > Don't flame me for this. You know it's true.
>
> You must live in a small world. In the course of a week, I
> travel more
than
> 600 miles.
Why?
>
> Don't you know that a bicycle is highly inefficient? The
> cost per mile of
a
> bicycle (when you consider the cost of fuel - Food vs
> Petroleum) is much higher. I can load-up my motorcycle
> with 80 lbs of cargo and travel 200 miles on $6 worth
> of fuel.
Please. That is the lamest argument that you drivers of
massive gas wasting SUVs use to apologize for your waste.
How long did it take to produce that $6 of fuel? And when
it's gone how long is it going to take to be replenished?
Can you grow oil like I can grow food?
Greg
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> > If people would get off their fat asses and commute by
> > bike...
>
> Which is the mark of a backwards turd world country.
No, it's the mark of a well laid out country. If people
wouldn't be such pussies and live closer to work they would
ride or walk. Or at worst they would use mass transit like
some of the better planned cities in the US.
>
> Did it ever occur to you that in the Middle East, if it
> wasn't for oil, those people would have nothing?
You mean a few people wouldn't have the riches that they
have? The "people" still have nothing.
>
> > Don't flame me for this. You know it's true.
>
> You must live in a small world. In the course of a week, I
> travel more
than
> 600 miles.
Why?
>
> Don't you know that a bicycle is highly inefficient? The
> cost per mile of
a
> bicycle (when you consider the cost of fuel - Food vs
> Petroleum) is much higher. I can load-up my motorcycle
> with 80 lbs of cargo and travel 200 miles on $6 worth
> of fuel.
Please. That is the lamest argument that you drivers of
massive gas wasting SUVs use to apologize for your waste.
How long did it take to produce that $6 of fuel? And when
it's gone how long is it going to take to be replenished?
Can you grow oil like I can grow food?
Greg
Dear Andre,
On a more serious note, it doesn't seem to be
true. Iraq is scarcely an important source of U.S.
oil imports.
The U.S. imports about 60% of its oil, the other
40% coming from Alaska, California, Texas, and
Louisiana. (The U.S. accounts for about 25% of
world oil consumption.)
The big four countries from which the U.S. imports
oil are Canda, Mexico, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia,
each providing about 15% of the imports (or 10% of
the total).
Iraq, Nigeria, and Colombia are on the second tier of
U.S. uppliers, each providing about 8% to 5% of the
imports (or 5% to 3% of the total).
The precise percentage vary monthly according to
politics, economics, weather, and oil-field production
problems.
When one country or U.S. state reduces production, the
others increase production to make up the difference
by pumping from new or idle fields.
Proven oil reserves have increased every year since
the nineteenth century.
Google for "U.S. oil imports" and Venezuela, and
endless web pages overflowing with statistics will
appear. Oil imported by the U.S. from Iraq amounts
to less than half the tip usually left at a restaurant.
Carl Fogel
G
G.Daniels
Guest
a few cents more on the electric bill 'eliminates' acid rain
and destruction of east coast forests and lakes remove the
global threat of mecury killing the oceans o2 producing
phytoplankton, the food chains bottom. and the euro's pay $4
a gallon and usa? subsidized gas will that be paper or
plastic? try bikes and long underwear? for a few cents
more.... for a few sense more we'd have a near zero problem
hear! so, if ya gotta truck at 11 mpg and ya don't need one
3xpletivedeleted
and destruction of east coast forests and lakes remove the
global threat of mecury killing the oceans o2 producing
phytoplankton, the food chains bottom. and the euro's pay $4
a gallon and usa? subsidized gas will that be paper or
plastic? try bikes and long underwear? for a few cents
more.... for a few sense more we'd have a near zero problem
hear! so, if ya gotta truck at 11 mpg and ya don't need one
3xpletivedeleted
B
Bestest Handsan
Guest
Damn! I hate it when my very comfortable and self-reaffirming, emotionally
derived, fact deprived opinion gets shot down with reality! What is a good
liberal to do?!
"carlfogel" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news[email protected]...
> Andre wrote:
> > Although obviously a troll, I would have to agree. The
> > bulk of fossil fuels are expended in a ridiculous
> > gridlock across the continent. If people would get off
> > their fat asses and commute by bike, then the hapless
> > US troops could be pulled out of harm's way in Iraq.
> > Don't
flame
> > me for this. You know it's true.
> > --
> > --------------------------
> > Andre Charlebois AGC-PC support http://agc-pc.tripod.com/http://agc-
> > pc.tripod.com BPE, MCSE4.0, CNA, A+ "g.daniels"
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:41b0dda1.0404020-
> >
918.ting.google.comnews:41b0dda1.0404020918.1e5edbe5@postin-
> > g.google.com...
> > > end of message
>
>
>
> Dear Andre,
>
> On a more serious note, it doesn't seem to be true. Iraq
> is scarcely an important source of U.S. oil imports.
>
> The U.S. imports about 60% of its oil, the other 40%
> coming from Alaska, California, Texas, and Louisiana. (The
> U.S. accounts for about 25% of world oil consumption.)
>
> The big four countries from which the U.S. imports oil are
> Canda, Mexico, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, each providing
> about 15% of the imports (or 10% of the total).
>
> Iraq, Nigeria, and Colombia are on the second tier of U.S.
> uppliers, each providing about 8% to 5% of the imports (or
> 5% to 3% of the total).
>
> The precise percentage vary monthly according to politics,
> economics, weather, and oil-field production problems.
>
> When one country or U.S. state reduces production, the
> others increase production to make up the difference by
> pumping from new or idle fields.
>
> Proven oil reserves have increased every year since the
> nineteenth century.
>
> Google for "U.S. oil imports" and Venezuela, and endless
> web pages overflowing with statistics will appear. Oil
> imported by the U.S. from Iraq amounts to less than half
> the tip usually left at a restaurant.
>
> Carl Fogel
>
>
>
> --
derived, fact deprived opinion gets shot down with reality! What is a good
liberal to do?!
"carlfogel" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news
[email protected]...> Andre wrote:
> > Although obviously a troll, I would have to agree. The
> > bulk of fossil fuels are expended in a ridiculous
> > gridlock across the continent. If people would get off
> > their fat asses and commute by bike, then the hapless
> > US troops could be pulled out of harm's way in Iraq.
> > Don't
flame
> > me for this. You know it's true.
> > --
> > --------------------------
> > Andre Charlebois AGC-PC support http://agc-pc.tripod.com/http://agc-
> > pc.tripod.com BPE, MCSE4.0, CNA, A+ "g.daniels"
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:41b0dda1.0404020-
> >
918.ting.google.comnews:41b0dda1.0404020918.1e5edbe5@postin-
> > g.google.com...
> > > end of message
>
>
>
> Dear Andre,
>
> On a more serious note, it doesn't seem to be true. Iraq
> is scarcely an important source of U.S. oil imports.
>
> The U.S. imports about 60% of its oil, the other 40%
> coming from Alaska, California, Texas, and Louisiana. (The
> U.S. accounts for about 25% of world oil consumption.)
>
> The big four countries from which the U.S. imports oil are
> Canda, Mexico, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, each providing
> about 15% of the imports (or 10% of the total).
>
> Iraq, Nigeria, and Colombia are on the second tier of U.S.
> uppliers, each providing about 8% to 5% of the imports (or
> 5% to 3% of the total).
>
> The precise percentage vary monthly according to politics,
> economics, weather, and oil-field production problems.
>
> When one country or U.S. state reduces production, the
> others increase production to make up the difference by
> pumping from new or idle fields.
>
> Proven oil reserves have increased every year since the
> nineteenth century.
>
> Google for "U.S. oil imports" and Venezuela, and endless
> web pages overflowing with statistics will appear. Oil
> imported by the U.S. from Iraq amounts to less than half
> the tip usually left at a restaurant.
>
> Carl Fogel
>
>
>
> --
W
W K
Guest
"carlfogel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On a more serious note, it doesn't seem to be true. Iraq
> is scarcely an important source of U.S. oil imports.
That is irrelevant for a global commodity.
news
[email protected]...> On a more serious note, it doesn't seem to be true. Iraq
> is scarcely an important source of U.S. oil imports.
That is irrelevant for a global commodity.
W
W K
Guest
"g.daniels" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> and the euro's pay $4 a gallon
try $5-$6
news:[email protected]...
> and the euro's pay $4 a gallon
try $5-$6
M
Matt O'Toole
Guest
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> Except that oil is not being renewed, like food...
It could be:
http://www.biodiesel.org/
In fact, Rudolf Diesel's original idea was to use bio-fuel.
Petro-fuel became cheaper later on.
Matt O.
> Except that oil is not being renewed, like food...
It could be:
http://www.biodiesel.org/
In fact, Rudolf Diesel's original idea was to use bio-fuel.
Petro-fuel became cheaper later on.
Matt O.
M
Matt O'Toole
Guest
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> Yep, biodiesel or Methanol made from corn but the SUV
> drivers will whine somehow..
Remember how Bush The First tried to push a corn alcohol
agenda? At the time, most people didn't give a damn. The
ones that did saw it as welfare for agribusiness (which it
was, but maybe with other benefits). Much of the ethanol
production we have now is a result of this, but it isn't
exactly taking over. The thing is, ethanol can be produced
at costs similar to gasoline. Biodiesel costs at least twice
as much to produce as petrodiesel.
If I were in charge, I'd give a 5 year holiday from road
taxes on alternative fuels. They could be gradually phased
in after that. This might be enough to kick start some new
industries and infrastructure, and bring costs down, but the
numbers would still be small enough that it wouldn't affect
tax revenues. Wanna make biodiesel from used fry oil in your
backyard? Fine. We won't come looking for you. Wanna convert
your car to run on natural gas? Go ahead, install a
compressor in your garage.
> So many, like the previous ranter, see the US' way of doin
> things, like mass consumption of pertroleum, as the way
> the world ought to be. Instead of genuine conservation
> starting with NOT buying large, inefficient vehicles. NO
> OTHER place in the world has these giants, like Suburbans,
> Excursions, Expeditions, etc...
Well, unfortunately, SUVs are the fastest growing market
segment in the UK, and probably other parts of Europe too.
What price, fashion? The reality is that people who can
afford an $800/month car payment don't care about the cost
of gas, even if it's over $100 to fill up. If they weren't
pissing it away on gas, it would be something else --
eating out, etc.
South of the border, huge SUVs are de rigeur for those who
can afford them. (Most big, new SUVs stolen in southern CA
wind up in Mexico.) Bad roads are an issue, but it's really
all about status. Bigshots drive big vehicles, the bigger
the better. Same thing in the Middle East, and it isn't all
because of cheap gas.
Matt O.
> Yep, biodiesel or Methanol made from corn but the SUV
> drivers will whine somehow..
Remember how Bush The First tried to push a corn alcohol
agenda? At the time, most people didn't give a damn. The
ones that did saw it as welfare for agribusiness (which it
was, but maybe with other benefits). Much of the ethanol
production we have now is a result of this, but it isn't
exactly taking over. The thing is, ethanol can be produced
at costs similar to gasoline. Biodiesel costs at least twice
as much to produce as petrodiesel.
If I were in charge, I'd give a 5 year holiday from road
taxes on alternative fuels. They could be gradually phased
in after that. This might be enough to kick start some new
industries and infrastructure, and bring costs down, but the
numbers would still be small enough that it wouldn't affect
tax revenues. Wanna make biodiesel from used fry oil in your
backyard? Fine. We won't come looking for you. Wanna convert
your car to run on natural gas? Go ahead, install a
compressor in your garage.
> So many, like the previous ranter, see the US' way of doin
> things, like mass consumption of pertroleum, as the way
> the world ought to be. Instead of genuine conservation
> starting with NOT buying large, inefficient vehicles. NO
> OTHER place in the world has these giants, like Suburbans,
> Excursions, Expeditions, etc...
Well, unfortunately, SUVs are the fastest growing market
segment in the UK, and probably other parts of Europe too.
What price, fashion? The reality is that people who can
afford an $800/month car payment don't care about the cost
of gas, even if it's over $100 to fill up. If they weren't
pissing it away on gas, it would be something else --
eating out, etc.
South of the border, huge SUVs are de rigeur for those who
can afford them. (Most big, new SUVs stolen in southern CA
wind up in Mexico.) Bad roads are an issue, but it's really
all about status. Bigshots drive big vehicles, the bigger
the better. Same thing in the Middle East, and it isn't all
because of cheap gas.
Matt O.
F
Frank Krygowski
Guest
G.T. wrote:
> "Reuben Hick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>You must live in a small world. In the course of a week, I
>>travel more than 600 miles.
>
>
> Why?
Bad planning. That's my bet.
--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and
"cc"]
> "Reuben Hick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>You must live in a small world. In the course of a week, I
>>travel more than 600 miles.
>
>
> Why?
Bad planning. That's my bet.
--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and
"cc"]
D
David Damerell
Guest
Matt O'Toole <[email protected]> wrote:
>Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>be. Instead of genuine conservation starting with NOT
>>buying large, inefficient vehicles. NO OTHER place in the
>>world has these giants, like Suburbans, Excursions,
>>Expeditions, etc...
>Well, unfortunately, SUVs are the fastest growing market
>segment in the UK,
Steady on; we are, yes, increasingly infested with land
barges, but almost none of them are the size of the larger
American ones, and many of them are smaller than any
American SUV.
... the damned things are still too big to see over in
traffic, though.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill
the tomato!
>Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>be. Instead of genuine conservation starting with NOT
>>buying large, inefficient vehicles. NO OTHER place in the
>>world has these giants, like Suburbans, Excursions,
>>Expeditions, etc...
>Well, unfortunately, SUVs are the fastest growing market
>segment in the UK,
Steady on; we are, yes, increasingly infested with land
barges, but almost none of them are the size of the larger
American ones, and many of them are smaller than any
American SUV.
... the damned things are still too big to see over in
traffic, though.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill
the tomato!
"carlfogel" <[email protected]> writes:
> Iraq is scarcely an important source of U.S. oil imports.
> The U.S. imports about 60% of its oil, the other 40% coming
> from Alaska, California, Texas, and Louisiana. (The U.S.
> accounts for about 25% of world oil consumption.)
> The big four countries from which the U.S. imports oil are Canda,
> Mexico, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, each providing about 15% of the
> imports (or 10% of the total).
>
> Iraq, Nigeria, and Colombia are on the second tier of U.S. uppliers,
> each providing about 8% to 5% of the imports (or 5% to 3% of the total).
>
> The precise percentage vary monthly according to politics, economics,
> weather, and oil-field production problems.
All of the above is true, but largely irrelevant.
> When one country or U.S. state reduces production, the others increase
> production to make up the difference by pumping from new or idle fields.
When one country reduces production, the traded price of oil rises, and its customers are forced to make up the shortfall elsewhere or draw on their strategic reserves. Coordinated production is not always carried out to the degree that you seem to imagine. Witness, for example, the results of last autumn's strikes in Venezuela.
> Proven oil reserves have increased every year since the
> nineteenth century.
Again, this is true, but not relevant.
> Google for "U.S. oil imports" and Venezuela, and endless web pages
> overflowing with statistics will appear. Oil imported by the U.S. from
> Iraq amounts to less than half the tip usually left at a restaurant.
As 'WK' correctly points out, the price of an internationally traded commodity is determined by international supply and demand. At 10 million barrels per day, the US is the world's largest oil importer by a large margin, and is running a record trade deficit, increased by every barrel it imports. Stable oil prices are critical for the continued functioning of an oil-dependent economy which many observers consider dangerously overextended.
A factor not widely reported but considered by many to be significant is the decision taken by Iraq in 2000 to trade oil in euros. The trading of oil in US dollars is the decisive factor in making the US dollar the de facto international currency. The euro zone's economy now rivals that of the United States, and continues to expand. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Iran indicated that it too would trade oil in euros. If the other OPEC countries were to follow suit, the resulting rush to sell dollars would lead to hyperinflation in the US economy. In itself, perhaps not sufficient justification for an invasion, but given the Bush administrations fondness for pre-emptive action, a strong argument for the removal of the Hussein regime.
War is also the single most effective method of converting public money (and the lives of combatants, journalists, and civilians) into corporate profit. Just as the invasion of Afghanistan (mooted as early as 1996) secured the much-needed southern outlet for American oil corporations' Caspian Sea operations, the invasion of Iraq opens the world's second largest proven reserves of oil to monopolization by American corporations.
In sum, while it may not be the whole picture, Andre is certainly correct that reducing Americans' dependence on petroleum (and the transport industry is the single largest consumer of refined petroleum products) would reduce the need for American troops, funded by American taxpayers, to travel to the ends of the earth to kill and be killed.
Next time you hear the infantile bleating of "why do they hate us?", resist the temptation to trot out the banal lie "they envy our freedoms", and consider instead the lengths to which your country has gone to maintain its economic hegemony.
N. Lenderby (Mrs)
> Iraq is scarcely an important source of U.S. oil imports.
> The U.S. imports about 60% of its oil, the other 40% coming
> from Alaska, California, Texas, and Louisiana. (The U.S.
> accounts for about 25% of world oil consumption.)
> The big four countries from which the U.S. imports oil are Canda,
> Mexico, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, each providing about 15% of the
> imports (or 10% of the total).
>
> Iraq, Nigeria, and Colombia are on the second tier of U.S. uppliers,
> each providing about 8% to 5% of the imports (or 5% to 3% of the total).
>
> The precise percentage vary monthly according to politics, economics,
> weather, and oil-field production problems.
All of the above is true, but largely irrelevant.
> When one country or U.S. state reduces production, the others increase
> production to make up the difference by pumping from new or idle fields.
When one country reduces production, the traded price of oil rises, and its customers are forced to make up the shortfall elsewhere or draw on their strategic reserves. Coordinated production is not always carried out to the degree that you seem to imagine. Witness, for example, the results of last autumn's strikes in Venezuela.
> Proven oil reserves have increased every year since the
> nineteenth century.
Again, this is true, but not relevant.
> Google for "U.S. oil imports" and Venezuela, and endless web pages
> overflowing with statistics will appear. Oil imported by the U.S. from
> Iraq amounts to less than half the tip usually left at a restaurant.
As 'WK' correctly points out, the price of an internationally traded commodity is determined by international supply and demand. At 10 million barrels per day, the US is the world's largest oil importer by a large margin, and is running a record trade deficit, increased by every barrel it imports. Stable oil prices are critical for the continued functioning of an oil-dependent economy which many observers consider dangerously overextended.
A factor not widely reported but considered by many to be significant is the decision taken by Iraq in 2000 to trade oil in euros. The trading of oil in US dollars is the decisive factor in making the US dollar the de facto international currency. The euro zone's economy now rivals that of the United States, and continues to expand. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Iran indicated that it too would trade oil in euros. If the other OPEC countries were to follow suit, the resulting rush to sell dollars would lead to hyperinflation in the US economy. In itself, perhaps not sufficient justification for an invasion, but given the Bush administrations fondness for pre-emptive action, a strong argument for the removal of the Hussein regime.
War is also the single most effective method of converting public money (and the lives of combatants, journalists, and civilians) into corporate profit. Just as the invasion of Afghanistan (mooted as early as 1996) secured the much-needed southern outlet for American oil corporations' Caspian Sea operations, the invasion of Iraq opens the world's second largest proven reserves of oil to monopolization by American corporations.
In sum, while it may not be the whole picture, Andre is certainly correct that reducing Americans' dependence on petroleum (and the transport industry is the single largest consumer of refined petroleum products) would reduce the need for American troops, funded by American taxpayers, to travel to the ends of the earth to kill and be killed.
Next time you hear the infantile bleating of "why do they hate us?", resist the temptation to trot out the banal lie "they envy our freedoms", and consider instead the lengths to which your country has gone to maintain its economic hegemony.
N. Lenderby (Mrs)