"For the first time, the top export of the United States, the world's
biggest gas guzzler, is — wait for it — fuel. Measured in dollars, the
nation is on pace this year to ship more gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel than
any other single export, according to U.S. Census data going back to 1990.
It will also be the first year in more than 60 that America has been a net
exporter of these fuels."

http://news.yahoo.com/first-gas-othe...200739553.html

HeyBub wrote:
"For the first time, the top export of the United States, the world's
biggest gas guzzler, is — wait for it — fuel. Measured in dollars, the
nation is on pace this year to ship more gasoline, diesel, and jet
fuel than any other single export, according to U.S. Census data
going back to 1990. It will also be the first year in more than 60
that America has been a net exporter of these fuels."

http://news.yahoo.com/first-gas-othe...200739553.html

And we'll increase exports as soon as they build that new pipeline.

Bob F wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
"For the first time, the top export of the United States, the world's
biggest gas guzzler, is — wait for it — fuel. Measured in dollars,
the nation is on pace this year to ship more gasoline, diesel, and
jet fuel than any other single export, according to U.S. Census data
going back to 1990. It will also be the first year in more than 60
that America has been a net exporter of these fuels."

http://news.yahoo.com/first-gas-othe...200739553.html

And we'll increase exports as soon as they build that new pipeline.

If you are talking about the Keystone Project, you may want to look a little
deeper into your last statement

--
PV

"This sig left intentionally blank"

PV wrote:
Bob F wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
"For the first time, the top export of the United States, the
world's biggest gas guzzler, is - wait for it - fuel. Measured in
dollars, the nation is on pace this year to ship more gasoline,
diesel, and jet fuel than any other single export, according to
U.S. Census data going back to 1990. It will also be the first year
in more than 60 that America has been a net exporter of these
fuels."
http://news.yahoo.com/first-gas-othe...200739553.html

And we'll increase exports as soon as they build that new pipeline.

If you are talking about the Keystone Project, you may want to look a
little deeper into your last statement

Yep. The pres has about 56 days to render a decision. Of course he'll veto
the project.

Then the oil industry goes to court, probably in a friendly venue like
Texas, where the decision will automatically be in favor of the oil bidness.
The government will most certainly appeal. To the Fifth Judicial District.
In New Orleans.

The Supremes will most likely decline to hear the case.

On Dec 31 2011, 10:19*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
PV wrote:
Bob F wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
"For the first time, the top export of the United States, the
world's biggest gas guzzler, is - wait for it - fuel. Measured in
dollars, the nation is on pace this year to ship more gasoline,
diesel, and jet fuel than any other single export, according to
U.S. Census data going back to 1990. It will also be the first year
in more than 60 that America has been a net exporter of these
fuels."
http://news.yahoo.com/first-gas-othe...200739553.html

And we'll increase exports as soon as they build that new pipeline.

If you are talking about the Keystone Project, you may want to look a
little deeper into your last statement

Yep. The pres has about 56 days to render a decision. Of course he'll veto
the project.

Then the oil industry goes to court, probably in a friendly venue like
Texas, where the decision will automatically be in favor of the oil bidness.
The government will most certainly appeal. To the Fifth Judicial District..
In New Orleans.

The Supremes will most likely decline to hear the case.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's quite amazing that the president is sitting on this and left
to his own devices would have not made any decision until
after the election. A simple pipeline that would not only create
jobs and bring more oil to the USA, but also increase our
national security and have petro dollars going to Canada, where
it's more likely they might wind up back here for goods and
services.

And it will be interesting to see if he approves it or not.
If he doesn't it will make a good campaign issue that
will resonate with most people. If he
does, it will **** off the environmental extremists, who
would have us living in caves.

wrote:
On Dec 31 2011, 10:19 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
PV wrote:
Bob F wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
"For the first time, the top export of the United States, the
world's biggest gas guzzler, is - wait for it - fuel. Measured in
dollars, the nation is on pace this year to ship more gasoline,
diesel, and jet fuel than any other single export, according to
U.S. Census data going back to 1990. It will also be the first
year in more than 60 that America has been a net exporter of these
fuels."
http://news.yahoo.com/first-gas-othe...200739553.html

And we'll increase exports as soon as they build that new pipeline.

If you are talking about the Keystone Project, you may want to look
a little deeper into your last statement

Yep. The pres has about 56 days to render a decision. Of course
he'll veto the project.

Then the oil industry goes to court, probably in a friendly venue
like Texas, where the decision will automatically be in favor of the
oil bidness. The government will most certainly appeal. To the Fifth
Judicial District. In New Orleans.

The Supremes will most likely decline to hear the case.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

It's quite amazing that the president is sitting on this and left
to his own devices would have not made any decision until
after the election. A simple pipeline that would not only create
jobs and bring more oil to the USA, but also increase our
national security and have petro dollars going to Canada, where
it's more likely they might wind up back here for goods and
services.

And it will be interesting to see if he approves it or not.
If he doesn't it will make a good campaign issue that
will resonate with most people. If he
does, it will **** off the environmental extremists, who
would have us living in caves.

I checked. We already have over 55,000 miles of oil and gas pipelines
criss-crossing the country. The amount of trouble they've caused in fifty or
more years of service ranges from none at all, to "We'll fix that leak
someday soon."

As for jobs, well, sure. There's going to be a bunch of them just digging
2,000+ miles of trenches and laying the pipe. But did you stop to think:
"Where's the pipe coming from?"

Somebody's got to MAKE the pipe. Assuming it will be made in the steel mills
of Pennsylvania, it still has to be TRANSPORTED to the job site.

Imagine each pipe joint is 50' long. That's over 200,000 joints of 12" pipe.
If a truck can manage, oh, 50 pieces, that's over 4,000 truck loads going to
the excavation site. Even if the pipe comes from China, it still has to get
from San Diego to Nebraska.

There's an awful lot of jobs in making and/or moving just the pipe. Then
there are compressor stations every couple of miles, access roads alongside
the pipeline, inspection points, monitoring stations, and a host of
auxiliary items.

It's a big job.

HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 31 2011, 10:19 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
As for jobs, well, sure. There's going to be a bunch of them just
digging 2,000+ miles of trenches and laying the pipe. But did you
stop to think: "Where's the pipe coming from?"

Somebody's got to MAKE the pipe. Assuming it will be made in the
steel mills of Pennsylvania, it still has to be TRANSPORTED to the
job site.

Made in China?

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Imagine each pipe joint is 50' long. That's over 200,000 joints of 12" pipe.
If a truck can manage, oh, 50 pieces, that's over 4,000 truck loads going to
the excavation site. Even if the pipe comes from China, it still has to get
from San Diego to Nebraska.

There's an awful lot of jobs in making and/or moving just the pipe. Then
there are compressor stations every couple of miles, access roads alongside
the pipeline, inspection points, monitoring stations, and a host of
auxiliary items.

It's a big job.

oh and don't forget the new refinery that would have to be built because there
isn't enough surplus refinery capacity to handle, but wait, we'll just export
the oil so there would be no net gain to the economy (in the long term)

I've heard the Chinese have been sending barge boats of consumer goods going
this way. Recycle metals and plastic the other way. Pipe in china? I can
imagine that.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Bob F" wrote in message
...

Somebody's got to MAKE the pipe. Assuming it will be made in the
steel mills of Pennsylvania, it still has to be TRANSPORTED to the
job site.

Made in China?

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Imagine each pipe joint is 50' long. That's over 200,000 joints of
12" pipe. If a truck can manage, oh, 50 pieces, that's over 4,000
truck loads going to the excavation site. Even if the pipe comes
from China, it still has to get from San Diego to Nebraska.

There's an awful lot of jobs in making and/or moving just the pipe.
Then there are compressor stations every couple of miles, access
roads alongside the pipeline, inspection points, monitoring
stations, and a host of auxiliary items.

It's a big job.

oh and don't forget the new refinery that would have to be built
because there isn't enough surplus refinery capacity to handle, but
wait, we'll just export the oil so there would be no net gain to the
economy (in the long term)

You're probably right. It takes a few years to build a refinery, but work
should begin about the same time as they start digging on the pipeline.
Unless, of course, the EPA intervenes and mandates that the new refinery be
built entirely from recycled beer cans and constructed by midgets.
Fortunately, when the pipeline terminates on the Gulf coast, there won't be
any onerous state restrictions; Texas and Louisiana know what works and what
doesn't in the oil bidness.

And exporting the refined product is a plus. Look how well-off Saudi Arabia
is.

Thanks. Glad someone else can see the wind blowing. And, it's a cold wind.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 17:33:15 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

You ever consider that this (crappy economy, and people yelling "do
something") is exactly what Zero wants?


Yes, Why do you ask?

"Bob F" wrote in message
...

Somebody's got to MAKE the pipe. Assuming it will be made in the
steel mills of Pennsylvania, it still has to be TRANSPORTED to the
job site.

Made in China?

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I've heard the Chinese have been sending barge boats of consumer
goods going this way. Recycle metals and plastic the other way. Pipe
in china? I can imagine that.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

There was a ruckus recently about some big bridges here in the US being build
with Chinese steel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/bu...pagewanted=all

HeyBub wrote:
And exporting the refined product is a plus. Look how well-off Saudi
Arabia is.

So much for the fantasy of lower prices in the US.

And, have you considered? That maybe tax cuts for the top 1% is exactly what
is needed? After all, they are the people who own corporations, and who hire
people.

Lets see what real Republicans say: http://www.gop.gov/indepth/jobs

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Bob F" wrote in message
...

And if one repub ever had a meaningful plan to help the jobs problem (other
than
tax cuts for the top 1%), we might actually have made progress.

On 1/1/2012 4:43 PM, Bob F wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 31 2011, 10:19 pm, wrote:
As for jobs, well, sure. There's going to be a bunch of them just
digging 2,000+ miles of trenches and laying the pipe. But did you
stop to think: "Where's the pipe coming from?"

Somebody's got to MAKE the pipe. Assuming it will be made in the
steel mills of Pennsylvania, it still has to be TRANSPORTED to the
job site.

Made in China?

I haven't seen any pipe from the US in about 10 years. The 12" pipe
that we just received here at this job in Texas is from Italy and
Poland. And the joints are 20' long, not 50'.

Some of the larger valves are made here in the US (16" and up), but
almost all of the material we use is from overseas. The steel (I beams,
columns) does come from china.

--
Robert Allison
New Braunfels, TX

"Bob F" wrote in message
...

And if one repub ever had a meaningful plan to help the jobs problem
(other than
tax cuts for the top 1%), we might actually have made progress.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
And, have you considered? That maybe tax cuts for the top 1% is
exactly what is needed? After all, they are the people who own
corporations, and who hire people.

Lets see what real Republicans say: http://www.gop.gov/indepth/jobs

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

Well. It's been tried continuously since Reagan took office. Where are the jobs?

Actually, the economic recovery helped everyone.
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archiv...taxrelief.html
===================================
President Bush demonstrated that letting people keep more of their own money
leads to economic growth. In 2001, America was experiencing the
unprecedented triple shock of a recession following the dot-com bust,
economic disruption due to the terrorist attacks of September 11, and
corporate accounting scandals. Fortunately, the country was able to
overcome these challenges, in part because President Bush's tax relief put
more money in families' pockets and encouraged businesses to grow and
invest. Following the President's 2003 tax relief, the United States had 52
months of uninterrupted job growth, the longest run on record.
==================================

After all, the government said so.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Bob F" wrote in message
...


Especially since the tax cuts under Bush were a set %age across the
board, dropped a full bracket of people off the tax roles entirely,
and through changes in who qualified for credits, doubled those who
actually got money back.

And the only class of people that have seen any real increase in income are
the
rich. The workers have seen nothing.

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 11:56:18 -0800, "Bob F"
wrote:


Well. It's been tried continuously since Reagan took office. Where are the jobs?

Well, I spoke to a gal in New Delhi (?) about tech support the other
day. Does that count? She gave me a new print head for the printer,
at no cost....

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 11:56:18 -0800, "Bob F" wrote:


"Bob F" wrote in message
...

And if one repub ever had a meaningful plan to help the jobs problem
(other than
tax cuts for the top 1%), we might actually have made progress.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
And, have you considered? That maybe tax cuts for the top 1% is
exactly what is needed? After all, they are the people who own
corporations, and who hire people.

Lets see what real Republicans say: http://www.gop.gov/indepth/jobs

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

Well. It's been tried continuously since Reagan took office. Where are the jobs?

If you had a skill and didn't live in mommy's basement, perhaps you could have
found a job when the unemployment rate was ~3%. I suppose that's too much to
expect, though.

Bob F wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
And exporting the refined product is a plus. Look how well-off Saudi
Arabia is.

So much for the fantasy of lower prices in the US.

Oil, and oil products, are fungible.

Producing more lowers the price world-wide and that simultaneously lowers
the price here. That's true for gasoline or any product made from oil.

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 16:55:36 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

Bob F wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
And exporting the refined product is a plus. Look how well-off Saudi
Arabia is.

So much for the fantasy of lower prices in the US.

Oil, and oil products, are fungible.

Producing more lowers the price world-wide and that simultaneously lowers
the price here. That's true for gasoline or any product made from oil.

The demand curve isn't close to being 1:1, either. Increasing the oil in the
market 10% will lower the price much more than 10%.

"HeyBub" wrote:

-snip-

Uh, no. Under Bush, the unemployment rate dropped to 4%.

Fact check-- it was 4% in 2000. It never got that low again on his
watch. It was closer to 6 and rising fast when he turned things
over.

Jim

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:52:14 -0500, Jim Elbrecht wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote:

-snip-

Uh, no. Under Bush, the unemployment rate dropped to 4%.

Fact check-- it was 4% in 2000. It never got that low again on his
watch. It was closer to 6 and rising fast when he turned things
over.

Was it 10%?

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


oh and don't forget the new refinery that would have to be built
because there isn't enough surplus refinery capacity to handle, but
wait, we'll just export the oil so there would be no net gain to the
economy (in the long term)

You're probably right. It takes a few years to build a refinery, but work
should begin about the same time as they start digging on the pipeline.
Unless, of course, the EPA intervenes and mandates that the new refinery be
built entirely from recycled beer cans and constructed by midgets.
Fortunately, when the pipeline terminates on the Gulf coast, there won't be
any onerous state restrictions; Texas and Louisiana know what works and what
doesn't in the oil bidness.

And exporting the refined product is a plus. Look how well-off Saudi Arabia
is.

there are no plans to build new refineries. there has been the need for extra
refinery capacity for years, if not decades but the number has actually
decreased.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Bob F wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
And exporting the refined product is a plus. Look how well-off Saudi
Arabia is.

So much for the fantasy of lower prices in the US.

Oil, and oil products, are fungible.

Producing more lowers the price world-wide and that simultaneously lowers
the price here. That's true for gasoline or any product made from oil.

if only this were true. what determines the price, or more properly influences
the price the most is the commodity traders. we know that in the US refinery
capacity is fixed (except for the occassional maintenance and/or explosions), we
know that the demand id mostly fixed and that the only thing that changes
constantly is the price the commodity traders bid it up.

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:18:45 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Bob F wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
And exporting the refined product is a plus. Look how well-off Saudi
Arabia is.

So much for the fantasy of lower prices in the US.

Oil, and oil products, are fungible.

Producing more lowers the price world-wide and that simultaneously lowers
the price here. That's true for gasoline or any product made from oil.

if only this were true. what determines the price, or more properly influences
the price the most is the commodity traders. we know that in the US refinery
capacity is fixed (except for the occassional maintenance and/or explosions), we
know that the demand id mostly fixed and that the only thing that changes
constantly is the price the commodity traders bid it up.

But that doesn't affect the world price? OK....

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 11:56:18 -0800, "Bob F"
wrote:


"Bob F" wrote in message
...

And if one repub ever had a meaningful plan to help the jobs problem
(other than
tax cuts for the top 1%), we might actually have made progress.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
And, have you considered? That maybe tax cuts for the top 1% is
exactly what is needed? After all, they are the people who own
corporations, and who hire people.

Lets see what real Republicans say: http://www.gop.gov/indepth/jobs

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

Well. It's been tried continuously since Reagan took office. Where
are the jobs?

If you had a skill and didn't live in mommy's basement, perhaps you
could have found a job when the unemployment rate was ~3%. I suppose
that's too much to expect, though.

I have always had great jobs, until I retired. But that's certainly not true of
a huge number of people suffering from the Bush recession. Fortunately, it is
beginning to turn around finally. Private sector jobs have been grow for months.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Actually, the economic recovery helped everyone.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archiv...taxrelief.html
===================================
President Bush demonstrated that letting people keep more of their
own money
leads to economic growth. In 2001, America was experiencing the
unprecedented triple shock of a recession following the dot-com bust,
economic disruption due to the terrorist attacks of September 11, and
corporate accounting scandals. Fortunately, the country was able to
overcome these challenges, in part because President Bush's tax
relief put
more money in families' pockets and encouraged businesses to grow and
invest. Following the President's 2003 tax relief, the United States
had 52
months of uninterrupted job growth, the longest run on record.
==================================

After all, the government said so.

And all lost by the time Bush left office.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:52:14 -0500, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote:

-snip-

Uh, no. Under Bush, the unemployment rate dropped to 4%.

Fact check-- it was 4% in 2000. It never got that low again on his
watch. It was closer to 6 and rising fast when he turned things
over.

Was it 10%?

Maybe not. But he sure had it headed that way. And the Repubs refused to let the
Demos do anything about it.

Anyone with a brain knows you can turn a fall like Bush caused around in a short
time.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:18:45 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Bob F wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
And exporting the refined product is a plus. Look how well-off
Saudi Arabia is.

So much for the fantasy of lower prices in the US.

Oil, and oil products, are fungible.

Producing more lowers the price world-wide and that simultaneously
lowers the price here. That's true for gasoline or any product made
from oil.

if only this were true. what determines the price, or more properly
influences the price the most is the commodity traders. we know that
in the US refinery capacity is fixed (except for the occassional
maintenance and/or explosions), we know that the demand id mostly
fixed and that the only thing that changes constantly is the price
the commodity traders bid it up.

But that doesn't affect the world price? OK....

Really?

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


oh and don't forget the new refinery that would have to be built
because there isn't enough surplus refinery capacity to handle, but
wait, we'll just export the oil so there would be no net gain to the
economy (in the long term)

You're probably right. It takes a few years to build a refinery, but
work should begin about the same time as they start digging on the
pipeline. Unless, of course, the EPA intervenes and mandates that
the new refinery be built entirely from recycled beer cans and
constructed by midgets. Fortunately, when the pipeline terminates on
the Gulf coast, there won't be any onerous state restrictions; Texas
and Louisiana know what works and what doesn't in the oil bidness.

And exporting the refined product is a plus. Look how well-off Saudi
Arabia is.

there are no plans to build new refineries. there has been the need
for extra refinery capacity for years, if not decades but the number
has actually decreased.

Conveniently driving prices up.

Bob F wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 11:56:18 -0800, "Bob F"
wrote:


"Bob F" wrote in message
...

And if one repub ever had a meaningful plan to help the jobs
problem (other than
tax cuts for the top 1%), we might actually have made progress.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
And, have you considered? That maybe tax cuts for the top 1% is
exactly what is needed? After all, they are the people who own
corporations, and who hire people.

Lets see what real Republicans say: http://www.gop.gov/indepth/jobs

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

Well. It's been tried continuously since Reagan took office. Where
are the jobs?

If you had a skill and didn't live in mommy's basement, perhaps you
could have found a job when the unemployment rate was ~3%. I suppose
that's too much to expect, though.

I have always had great jobs, until I retired. But that's certainly
not true of a huge number of people suffering from the Bush
recession. Fortunately, it is beginning to turn around finally.
Private sector jobs have been grow for months.

You are correct. Regrettably, the water is still coming over the levee -
that is more people are joining the brigade of potential workers due to
population growth than are finding jobs. Each month, 220,000 people begin
looking for work for the first time with only half to two-thirds being able
to find jobs.

In my view, no one is suffering from the Bush recession; they are suffering
from the Democratic Congress recession. Heck, the economy was superb during
the first six years of the Bush administration.

Bob F wrote:
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


oh and don't forget the new refinery that would have to be built
because there isn't enough surplus refinery capacity to handle, but
wait, we'll just export the oil so there would be no net gain to
the economy (in the long term)

You're probably right. It takes a few years to build a refinery, but
work should begin about the same time as they start digging on the
pipeline. Unless, of course, the EPA intervenes and mandates that
the new refinery be built entirely from recycled beer cans and
constructed by midgets. Fortunately, when the pipeline terminates on
the Gulf coast, there won't be any onerous state restrictions; Texas
and Louisiana know what works and what doesn't in the oil bidness.

And exporting the refined product is a plus. Look how well-off Saudi
Arabia is.

there are no plans to build new refineries. there has been the need
for extra refinery capacity for years, if not decades but the number
has actually decreased.

Conveniently driving prices up.

To an oil company, price is irrelevant. What counts is profit. Every, and I
do mean EVERY, economic study of products made from oil, mostly gasoline and
heating oil, show that profit is inversely proportional to price. That is,
the lower the price, the more profit.

The great arch-villian, John D. Rockefeller, drove down the price of
Kerosene from $3.00/gallon to five cents (in three years) and became rich as
a result.

Obviously, there's no profit if the oil company sells gasoline below the
cost to produce, but numerous studies prove that the closer oil companies
get to the production cost, the greater their profit. Hence, upward prices
reflect, not the desire to make more profit, but instead the increased cost
of production.

Yes, and that AA still in place. In order to prevent dicrimination (refusal
to hire people based on their racial makeup) from taking place, we're now
government mandated to hire people based on their racial makeup.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...

I don't pay too much attention to it all because I never have trouble
finding work, it usually finds me and since I have all these medical
problems the amount of work I can do depends on whether I can crawl
out of bed. I gave up on trying to be someone's employee, especially
in the corporate world when all the Affirmative Action crap got really
bad and that was in the early 80's. o_O

TDD

Yeah, that 5% unemployment was really rough. I'm glad we have 22%
unemployment, if you factor in all the discouraged people the admin doesn't
count.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate...loyment-charts



Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Bob F" wrote in message
...

I have always had great jobs, until I retired. But that's certainly not true
of
a huge number of people suffering from the Bush recession. Fortunately, it
is
beginning to turn around finally. Private sector jobs have been grow for
months.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


And exporting the refined product is a plus. Look how well-off Saudi
Arabia is.

there are no plans to build new refineries. there has been the need
for extra refinery capacity for years, if not decades but the number
has actually decreased.

Conveniently driving prices up.

To an oil company, price is irrelevant. What counts is profit. Every, and I
do mean EVERY, economic study of products made from oil, mostly gasoline and
heating oil, show that profit is inversely proportional to price. That is,
the lower the price, the more profit.

The great arch-villian, John D. Rockefeller, drove down the price of
Kerosene from $3.00/gallon to five cents (in three years) and became rich as
a result.

Obviously, there's no profit if the oil company sells gasoline below the
cost to produce, but numerous studies prove that the closer oil companies
get to the production cost, the greater their profit. Hence, upward prices
reflect, not the desire to make more profit, but instead the increased cost
of production.

oh come now, except for the price of oil there are no increases in the cost of
production. also this does not reflect the fact that prices rise faster than
they fall giving the same thing for oil cost

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


And exporting the refined product is a plus. Look how well-off
Saudi Arabia is.

there are no plans to build new refineries. there has been the need
for extra refinery capacity for years, if not decades but the
number has actually decreased.

Conveniently driving prices up.

To an oil company, price is irrelevant. What counts is profit.
Every, and I do mean EVERY, economic study of products made from
oil, mostly gasoline and heating oil, show that profit is inversely
proportional to price. That is, the lower the price, the more profit.

The great arch-villian, John D. Rockefeller, drove down the price of
Kerosene from $3.00/gallon to five cents (in three years) and became
rich as a result.

Obviously, there's no profit if the oil company sells gasoline below
the cost to produce, but numerous studies prove that the closer oil
companies get to the production cost, the greater their profit.
Hence, upward prices reflect, not the desire to make more profit,
but instead the increased cost of production.

oh come now, except for the price of oil there are no increases in
the cost of production. also this does not reflect the fact that
prices rise faster than they fall giving the same thing for oil cost

A. The price of crude is the largest contributor to the price of the
finished product.

B. "Rocket up, feather down" applies only at the retail level. Finished
product price at the refinery is almost instantaneous with the cost of
crude. At the retail level, consider the gas station operator:

On Jan 1, 4:07*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 31 2011, 10:19 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
PV wrote:
Bob F wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
"For the first time, the top export of the United States, the
world's biggest gas guzzler, is - wait for it - fuel. Measured in
dollars, the nation is on pace this year to ship more gasoline,
diesel, and jet fuel than any other single export, according to
U.S. Census data going back to 1990. It will also be the first
year in more than 60 that America has been a net exporter of these
fuels."
http://news.yahoo.com/first-gas-othe...200739553.html

And we'll increase exports as soon as they build that new pipeline.

If you are talking about the Keystone Project, you may want to look
a little deeper into your last statement

Yep. The pres has about 56 days to render a decision. Of course
he'll veto the project.

Then the oil industry goes to court, probably in a friendly venue
like Texas, where the decision will automatically be in favor of the
oil bidness. The government will most certainly appeal. To the Fifth
Judicial District. In New Orleans.

The Supremes will most likely decline to hear the case.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

It's quite amazing that the president is sitting on this and left
to his own devices would have not made any decision until
after the election. * A simple pipeline that would not only create
jobs and bring more oil to the USA, but also increase our
national security and have petro dollars going to Canada, where
it's more likely they might wind up back here for goods and
services.

And it will be interesting to see if he approves it or not.
If he doesn't it will make a good campaign issue that
will resonate with most people. * If he
does, it will **** off the environmental extremists, who
would have us living in caves.

I checked. We already have over 55,000 miles of oil and gas pipelines
criss-crossing the country. The amount of trouble they've caused in fifty or
more years of service ranges from none at all, to "We'll fix that leak
someday soon."

As for jobs, well, sure. There's going to be a bunch of them just digging
2,000+ miles of trenches and laying the pipe. But did you stop to think:
"Where's the pipe coming from?"

Somebody's got to MAKE the pipe. Assuming it will be made in the steel mills
of Pennsylvania, it still has to be TRANSPORTED to the job site.

Imagine each pipe joint is 50' long. That's over 200,000 joints of 12" pipe.
If a truck can manage, oh, 50 pieces, that's over 4,000 truck loads going to
the excavation site. Even if the pipe comes from China, it still has to get
from San Diego to Nebraska.

There's an awful lot of jobs in making and/or moving just the pipe. Then
there are compressor stations every couple of miles, access roads alongside
the pipeline, inspection points, monitoring stations, and a host of
auxiliary items.

It's a big job.

Pipe is usually shipped across country on train to the nearest
terminal to the work site.

Jimmie

JIMMIE wrote:

There's an awful lot of jobs in making and/or moving just the pipe.
Then there are compressor stations every couple of miles, access
roads alongside the pipeline, inspection points, monitoring
stations, and a host of auxiliary items.

It's a big job.

Pipe is usually shipped across country on train to the nearest
terminal to the work site.

Jimmie

Ah, yes. I overlooked trains. Thanks for the addendum.

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 22:56:20 -0800, "Bob F" wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 11:56:18 -0800, "Bob F"
wrote:


"Bob F" wrote in message
...

And if one repub ever had a meaningful plan to help the jobs problem
(other than
tax cuts for the top 1%), we might actually have made progress.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
And, have you considered? That maybe tax cuts for the top 1% is
exactly what is needed? After all, they are the people who own
corporations, and who hire people.

Lets see what real Republicans say: http://www.gop.gov/indepth/jobs

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

Well. It's been tried continuously since Reagan took office. Where
are the jobs?

If you had a skill and didn't live in mommy's basement, perhaps you
could have found a job when the unemployment rate was ~3%. I suppose
that's too much to expect, though.

I have always had great jobs, until I retired.

(read: "until he was fired")

But that's certainly not true of
a huge number of people suffering from the Bush recession. Fortunately, it is
beginning to turn around finally. Private sector jobs have been grow for months.

You're nuts, but everyone here already knew that.