http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...%7D&siteid=rss

Feb. 26, 2008

.................................................. .................................................

As the broader market began to regain lost ground, crude prices for
April delivery gained 2.3% to a new high of $101.11 a barrel on the
New York Mercantile Exchange, surpassing crude's last record of
$100.65 hit last week.





...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. |
mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. |
et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASICK's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Freedom Abusers, Because of the *******s.

On Feb 27, 3:59 pm, "Jim Thompson" To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com wrote:
http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...7B40D68525%2DB...

Feb. 26, 2008

.................................................. ................................................

As the broader market began to regain lost ground, crude prices for
April delivery gained 2.3% to a new high of $101.11 a barrel on the
New York Mercantile Exchange, surpassing crude's last record of
$100.65 hit last week.

Still massively under-priced.

It wasn't that long ago (around 1998-99) I was working on designing
oil survey gear when the price was around $15 a barrel. Petrol prices
certainly haven't gone up 700% since then... Petrol is still cheaper
than milk and bottled water here in Oz. Funny how it all works huh?

Dave.

On Feb 26, 10:14*pm, "David L. Jones" wrote:
On Feb 27, 3:59 pm, "Jim Thompson" To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-

Web-Site.com wrote:
http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...7B40D68525%2DB....

Feb. 26, 2008

.................................................. ..........................*.......................

As the broader market began to regain lost ground, crude prices for
April delivery gained 2.3% to a new high of $101.11 a barrel on the
New York Mercantile Exchange, surpassing crude's last record of
$100.65 hit last week.

Still massively under-priced.

Perhaps so.

It wasn't that long ago (around 1998-99) I was working on designing
oil survey gear when the price was around $15 a barrel. Petrol prices
certainly haven't gone up 700% since then... Petrol is still cheaper
than milk and bottled water here in Oz. Funny how it all works huh?

Dave.

I'm developing a milk-powered car. When petrol gets more expensive
than milk, I'm gonna make millions.

"gearhead" wrote in message
...
On Feb 26, 10:14 pm, "David L. Jones" wrote:
On Feb 27, 3:59 pm, "Jim Thompson" To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-

Web-Site.com wrote:
http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...7B40D68525%2DB...

Feb. 26, 2008

.................................................. .........................*.......................

As the broader market began to regain lost ground, crude prices for
April delivery gained 2.3% to a new high of $101.11 a barrel on the
New York Mercantile Exchange, surpassing crude's last record of
$100.65 hit last week.

Still massively under-priced.

Perhaps so.

It wasn't that long ago (around 1998-99) I was working on designing
oil survey gear when the price was around $15 a barrel. Petrol prices
certainly haven't gone up 700% since then... Petrol is still cheaper
than milk and bottled water here in Oz. Funny how it all works huh?

Dave.

I'm developing a milk-powered car. When petrol gets more expensive
than milk, I'm gonna make millions.



Some idiots said they can power a car with water, I tried splitting water
and I got 20% return of what I put in. ****.... America you're lying to each
other to no end. If you want to know the guy who discovered a solution for
fuel problem then he is me. I just act funny that's all. I know a lot more
than you gave me the credit. Ain't that a HOOT?



...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et
|
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASICK's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Freedom Abusers, Because of the *******s.

Some idiots said they can power a car with water, I tried splitting water
and I got 20% return of what I put in. ****.... America you're lying to
each
other to no end. If you want to know the guy who discovered a solution
for
fuel problem then he is me. I just act funny that's all. I know a lot
more
than you gave me the credit. Ain't that a HOOT?



It's just another perpetual motion machine scheme. Water powered cars, 100
mpg carburetors, free energy, these scams have been around for hundreds of
years. Every one of them violates well proven laws of science but they
succeed because people want to believe.

Hey "Jim" (Message-ID: ), your sig isn't even lining
up.

Go play with your kindergarten classmates. Well I suppose they don't want
you, huh?

Tim

--
Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk.
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
Some idiots

"Jim Thompson" skrev i en
meddelelse ...

http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...%7D&siteid=rss

Feb. 26, 2008

.................................................. ................................................

As the broader market began to regain lost ground, crude prices for
April delivery gained 2.3% to a new high of $101.11 a barrel on the
New York Mercantile Exchange, surpassing crude's last record of
$100.65 hit last week.





...Jim Thompson

What people *should* be watching is the price of Wheat, Soy Beans e.t.c.
because that is where trouble will come from. In the middle east, India and
Pakistan people are going from being middle class to having to choose
between heating and eating! China has enacted price controls - *ensuring* a
shortage (maybe they will shoot some farmers to get the point across that it
is well to produce at a loss)

PS:
And welcome to the brand new regime of Ressource limited growth replacing
Finance limited growth. South Africa's mines are running below capacity due
to lack of electricity.

On Feb 27, 9:35 am, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
wrote:
"Jim Thompson" skrev i en
...





http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...7B40D68525%2DB...

Feb. 26, 2008

.................................................. ................................................

As the broader market began to regain lost ground, crude prices for
April delivery gained 2.3% to a new high of $101.11 a barrel on the
New York Mercantile Exchange, surpassing crude's last record of
$100.65 hit last week.

...Jim Thompson

What people *should* be watching is the price of Wheat, Soy Beans e.t.c.
because that is where trouble will come from. In the middle east, India and
Pakistan people are going from being middle class to having to choose
between heating and eating! China has enacted price controls - *ensuring* a
shortage (maybe they will shoot some farmers to get the point across that it
is well to produce at a loss)

You can thank the biofuel craze for that. Planting for burning drives
up food from supply *and* demand sides, plus all the downstream
products--and in other countries--too.

Unintended consequences:

1. Al Gore sounds alarm
2. biofuel craze
3. farmers grow feedstock for cars instead of people

Results:
4. Human misery increased
a. inflation, locally
b. food becomes unaffordable in Mexico and Haiti
c. people starve

5. Environment not improved
a. replacement food grown, appallingly inefficiently
b. net CO2 emissions increase


Best wishes,
James Arthur

In ,
James Arthur wrote:

on food price inflation

You can thank the biofuel craze for that. Planting for burning drives
up food from supply *and* demand sides, plus all the downstream
products--and in other countries--too.

Unintended consequences:

1. Al Gore sounds alarm
2. biofuel craze
3. farmers grow feedstock for cars instead of people

Results:
4. Human misery increased
a. inflation, locally
b. food becomes unaffordable in Mexico and Haiti
c. people starve

5. Environment not improved
a. replacement food grown, appallingly inefficiently
b. net CO2 emissions increase

I don't see 5b being true. The food plants is are replaced from carbon
already in the environment. If this achieves any reduction in consumption
in fossil fuels, then it achieves a decrease in transfer of carbon from
the lithosphere to the atmosphere, biosphere and hydrosphere.

- Don Klipstein )

On Feb 27, 3:10 pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In ,

James Arthur wrote:

on food price inflation


You can thank the biofuel craze for that. Planting for burning drives
up food from supply *and* demand sides, plus all the downstream
products--and in other countries--too.

Unintended consequences:

1. Al Gore sounds alarm
2. biofuel craze
3. farmers grow feedstock for cars instead of people

Results:
4. Human misery increased
a. inflation, locally
b. food becomes unaffordable in Mexico and Haiti
c. people starve

5. Environment not improved
a. replacement food grown, appallingly inefficiently
b. net CO2 emissions increase

I don't see 5b being true. The food plants is are replaced from carbon
already in the environment. If this achieves any reduction in consumption
in fossil fuels, then it achieves a decrease in transfer of carbon from
the lithosphere to the atmosphere, biosphere and hydrosphere.

- Don Klipstein )

There was a paper out recently on that.

The problem not previously considered is that any food not grown here
has to be replaced. That means it has to be grown somewhere else,
generally under more primitive conditions (e.g. slash & burn (shudder)
or just otherwise less efficiently).

Since the planting-for-biofuel barely yields more than it consumes in
tractor fuel, etc., to start with, any overall loss in efficiency
results in net increased emissions. So say the paper's authors,
anyhow.

Cheers,
James Arthur

On Feb 27, 3:25 pm, James Arthur wrote:
On Feb 27, 3:10 pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:



In ,

James Arthur wrote:

on food price inflation

You can thank the biofuel craze for that. Planting for burning drives
up food from supply *and* demand sides, plus all the downstream
products--and in other countries--too.

Unintended consequences:

1. Al Gore sounds alarm
2. biofuel craze
3. farmers grow feedstock for cars instead of people

Results:
4. Human misery increased
a. inflation, locally
b. food becomes unaffordable in Mexico and Haiti
c. people starve

5. Environment not improved
a. replacement food grown, appallingly inefficiently
b. net CO2 emissions increase

I don't see 5b being true. The food plants is are replaced from carbon
already in the environment. If this achieves any reduction in consumption
in fossil fuels, then it achieves a decrease in transfer of carbon from
the lithosphere to the atmosphere, biosphere and hydrosphere.

- Don Klipstein )

There was a paper out recently on that.

The problem not previously considered is that any food not grown here
has to be replaced. That means it has to be grown somewhere else,
generally under more primitive conditions (e.g. slash & burn (shudder)
or just otherwise less efficiently).

Since the planting-for-biofuel barely yields more than it consumes in
tractor fuel, etc., to start with, any overall loss in efficiency
results in net increased emissions. So say the paper's authors,
anyhow.

Summary he http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=18784732

--James

On Feb 27, 3:25*pm, James Arthur wrote:
On Feb 27, 3:10 pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:





In ,

James Arthur wrote:

on food price inflation

You can thank the biofuel craze for that. *Planting for burning drives
up food from supply *and* demand sides, plus all the downstream
products--and in other countries--too.

Unintended consequences:

1. Al Gore sounds alarm
2. biofuel craze
3. farmers grow feedstock for cars instead of people

Results:
4. Human misery increased
* a. inflation, locally
* b. food becomes unaffordable in Mexico and Haiti
* c. people starve

5. Environment not improved
* a. replacement food grown, appallingly inefficiently
* b. net CO2 emissions increase

* I don't see 5b being true. *The food plants is are replaced from carbon
already in the environment. *If this achieves any reduction in consumption
in fossil fuels, then it achieves a decrease in transfer of carbon from
the lithosphere to the atmosphere, biosphere and hydrosphere.

*- Don Klipstein )

There was a paper out recently on that.

The problem not previously considered is that any food not grown here
has to be replaced. *That means it has to be grown somewhere else,
generally under more primitive conditions (e.g. slash & burn (shudder)
or just otherwise less efficiently).

Since the planting-for-biofuel barely yields more than it consumes in
tractor fuel, etc., to start with, any overall loss in efficiency
results in net increased emissions. *So say the paper's authors,
anyhow.

Cheers,
James Arthur- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What about using kelp (seaweed) for bio-fuel? The ocean is cheap real
estate and you don't have irrigation problems, mostly just transport
problems. All you have to do is harvest the kelp and turn it into
methane gas.

-Bill

In ,
James Arthur wrote:

On Feb 27, 3:10 pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In ,

James Arthur wrote:

on food price inflation


You can thank the biofuel craze for that. Planting for burning drives
up food from supply *and* demand sides, plus all the downstream
products--and in other countries--too.

Unintended consequences:

1. Al Gore sounds alarm
2. biofuel craze
3. farmers grow feedstock for cars instead of people

Results:
4. Human misery increased
a. inflation, locally
b. food becomes unaffordable in Mexico and Haiti
c. people starve

5. Environment not improved
a. replacement food grown, appallingly inefficiently
b. net CO2 emissions increase

I don't see 5b being true. The food plants is are replaced from carbon
already in the environment. If this achieves any reduction in consumption
in fossil fuels, then it achieves a decrease in transfer of carbon from
the lithosphere to the atmosphere, biosphere and hydrosphere.

- Don Klipstein )

There was a paper out recently on that.

The problem not previously considered is that any food not grown here
has to be replaced. That means it has to be grown somewhere else,
generally under more primitive conditions (e.g. slash & burn (shudder)
or just otherwise less efficiently).

Since the planting-for-biofuel barely yields more than it consumes in
tractor fuel, etc., to start with, any overall loss in efficiency
results in net increased emissions. So say the paper's authors,
anyhow.

The way I hear it, a Cornell study made calculations assuming all
ethanol comes from corn grown on fields requiring irrigation, which is
only 15% of all American corn.

It appears to me that the valid points against biofuels are mainly on
bidding food prices higher.

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote:
In ,
James Arthur wrote:

on food price inflation

You can thank the biofuel craze for that. Planting for burning drives
up food from supply *and* demand sides, plus all the downstream
products--and in other countries--too.

Unintended consequences:

1. Al Gore sounds alarm
2. biofuel craze
3. farmers grow feedstock for cars instead of people

Results:
4. Human misery increased
a. inflation, locally
b. food becomes unaffordable in Mexico and Haiti
c. people starve

5. Environment not improved
a. replacement food grown, appallingly inefficiently
b. net CO2 emissions increase

I don't see 5b being true. The food plants is are replaced from carbon
already in the environment. If this achieves any reduction in consumption
in fossil fuels, then it achieves a decrease in transfer of carbon from
the lithosphere to the atmosphere, biosphere and hydrosphere.

- Don Klipstein )

Check out whether leaving the non-product parts of the plants just lying
there versus plowing it under has the best carbon sequestration result.

In message , Don Klipstein
writes
In ,
James Arthur wrote:

on food price inflation

You can thank the biofuel craze for that. Planting for burning drives
up food from supply *and* demand sides, plus all the downstream
products--and in other countries--too.

Unintended consequences:

1. Al Gore sounds alarm
2. biofuel craze
3. farmers grow feedstock for cars instead of people

Results:
4. Human misery increased
a. inflation, locally
b. food becomes unaffordable in Mexico and Haiti
c. people starve

5. Environment not improved
a. replacement food grown, appallingly inefficiently
b. net CO2 emissions increase

I don't see 5b being true. The food plants is are replaced from carbon
already in the environment. If this achieves any reduction in consumption
in fossil fuels, then it achieves a decrease in transfer of carbon from
the lithosphere to the atmosphere, biosphere and hydrosphere.

Only if you don't slash and burn pristine rain forest to grow your new
fuel and food which is what is happening in many places at present. You
lose on both sides of the equation, burning the forest and no longer
having it there to do photosynthesis. By comparison the crops don't fix
as much CO2 and the poor soil quickly degrades without the forest
canopy.

The economics of biofuel are questionable at best - some schemes
actually use more energy from fossil fuel to cultivate and process the
crop it than is yielded by the final product. You might as well not
bother.

When we can turn straw and wood waste into alcohol for fuel then we will
have something useful, but turning grain into fuel is certifiable.

Regards.
--
Martin Brown

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article , Martin Brown wrote:
In message , Don Klipstein
writes
In ,
James Arthur wrote:

on food price inflation

You can thank the biofuel craze for that. Planting for burning drives
up food from supply *and* demand sides, plus all the downstream
products--and in other countries--too.

Unintended consequences:

1. Al Gore sounds alarm
2. biofuel craze
3. farmers grow feedstock for cars instead of people

Results:
4. Human misery increased
a. inflation, locally
b. food becomes unaffordable in Mexico and Haiti
c. people starve

5. Environment not improved
a. replacement food grown, appallingly inefficiently
b. net CO2 emissions increase

I don't see 5b being true. The food plants is are replaced from carbon
already in the environment. If this achieves any reduction in consumption
in fossil fuels, then it achieves a decrease in transfer of carbon from
the lithosphere to the atmosphere, biosphere and hydrosphere.

Only if you don't slash and burn pristine rain forest to grow your new
fuel and food which is what is happening in many places at present.

Forest destruction is a one-time event for a given area. Having the
land replace petroleum consumption with biomass burning will be replacement
of ongoing carbon desequestration with neutral carbon impact.

You lose on both sides of the equation, burning the forest and no
longer having it there to do photosynthesis. By comparison the crops
don't fix as much CO2

Where do you get that? A steady-state forest has zero carbon impact
both locally and globally - the biomass content in a natural forest is not
steadily increasing long term, but constant on a long term. Cropland
sequesters carbon locally and if the crop is eaten, burned, decomposed or
any combination of these, has zero carbon impact globally.

and the poor soil quickly degrades without the forest canopy.

That is a separate problem, to be solved by growing sustainable crops or
growing crops where they can be sustained.

The USA has a fair amount of farmland that could not be sustained until
crop rotation including legumes was implemented.

The economics of biofuel are questionable at best - some schemes
actually use more energy from fossil fuel to cultivate and process the
crop it than is yielded by the final product. You might as well not
bother.

What about the schemes that produce more energy than consumed? They do
exist and are used!

When we can turn straw and wood waste into alcohol for fuel then we will
have something useful, but turning grain into fuel is certifiable.

Impact on food prices is a remaining argument to consider. Meanwhile,
corn is now $5.21-$5.28 a bushel, 9.3 to 9.4 cents per pound.

With petroleum costing about 30 cents per pound and having much more
energy per unit weight than corn probably by a factor of more than 3.2 or
so, I would go along with arguments against government mandates to get
corn to get used that way unless there is a benefit, such a likelihood
that biofuel ethanol will be cheaper (even per unit energy) than petroleum
in the foreseeable future.

- Don Klipstein )

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:12:47 -0800 (PST), James Arthur
wrote:

On Feb 27, 9:35 am, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
k wrote:
"Jim Thompson" skrev i en
...





http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...7B40D68525%2DB...

Feb. 26, 2008

.................................................. ................................................

As the broader market began to regain lost ground, crude prices for
April delivery gained 2.3% to a new high of $101.11 a barrel on the
New York Mercantile Exchange, surpassing crude's last record of
$100.65 hit last week.

...Jim Thompson

What people *should* be watching is the price of Wheat, Soy Beans e.t.c.
because that is where trouble will come from. In the middle east, India and
Pakistan people are going from being middle class to having to choose
between heating and eating! China has enacted price controls - *ensuring* a
shortage (maybe they will shoot some farmers to get the point across that it
is well to produce at a loss)

You can thank the biofuel craze for that. Planting for burning drives
up food from supply *and* demand sides, plus all the downstream
products--and in other countries--too.

Unintended consequences:

1. Al Gore sounds alarm
2. biofuel craze
3. farmers grow feedstock for cars instead of people

Results:
4. Human misery increased
a. inflation, locally
b. food becomes unaffordable in Mexico and Haiti
c. people starve

5. Environment not improved
a. replacement food grown, appallingly inefficiently
b. net CO2 emissions increase


Best wishes,
James Arthur


So they gave the Nobel Peace Prize to a mass murderer.

John

On Feb 27, 6:43 pm, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:12:47 -0800 (PST), James Arthur wrote:
On Feb 27, 9:35 am, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen" wrote:

[...]

What people *should* be watching is the price of Wheat, Soy Beans e.t.c.
because that is where trouble will come from. In the middle east, India and
Pakistan people are going from being middle class to having to choose
between heating and eating! China has enacted price controls - *ensuring* a
shortage (maybe they will shoot some farmers to get the point across that it
is well to produce at a loss)

You can thank the biofuel craze for that. Planting for burning drives
up food from supply *and* demand sides, plus all the downstream
products--and in other countries--too.

Unintended consequences:

1. Al Gore sounds alarm
2. biofuel craze
3. farmers grow feedstock for cars instead of people

Results:
4. Human misery increased
a. inflation, locally
b. food becomes unaffordable in Mexico and Haiti
c. people starve

5. Environment not improved
a. replacement food grown, appallingly inefficiently
b. net CO2 emissions increase

Best wishes,
James Arthur

So they gave the Nobel Peace Prize to a mass murderer.

John

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22902512/

Intentions are fine, but one has to consider one's actions carefully.
"Activists" sometimes fall a little short in this department.

Cheers,
James Arthur

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:21:53 -0800 (PST), James Arthur
wrote:

On Feb 27, 6:43 pm, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:12:47 -0800 (PST), James Arthur wrote:
On Feb 27, 9:35 am, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen" wrote:

[...]

What people *should* be watching is the price of Wheat, Soy Beans e.t.c.
because that is where trouble will come from. In the middle east, India and
Pakistan people are going from being middle class to having to choose
between heating and eating! China has enacted price controls - *ensuring* a
shortage (maybe they will shoot some farmers to get the point across that it
is well to produce at a loss)

You can thank the biofuel craze for that. Planting for burning drives
up food from supply *and* demand sides, plus all the downstream
products--and in other countries--too.

Unintended consequences:

1. Al Gore sounds alarm
2. biofuel craze
3. farmers grow feedstock for cars instead of people

Results:
4. Human misery increased
a. inflation, locally
b. food becomes unaffordable in Mexico and Haiti
c. people starve

5. Environment not improved
a. replacement food grown, appallingly inefficiently
b. net CO2 emissions increase

Best wishes,
James Arthur

So they gave the Nobel Peace Prize to a mass murderer.

John

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22902512/

Intentions are fine, but one has to consider one's actions carefully.
"Activists" sometimes fall a little short in this department.

Cheers,
James Arthur


"At the market in the La Saline slum, two cups of rice now sell for 60
cents, up 10 cents from December and 50 percent from a year ago."

That's tragic. At the upscale Safeway down the street, I can get
premium-quality jasmine rice for about 40 cents a pound.

John

On Feb 27, 10:21*pm, James Arthur wrote:
On Feb 27, 6:43 pm, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:12:47 -0800 (PST), James Arthur *wrote:
On Feb 27, 9:35 am, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen" wrote:

[...]





What people *should* be watching is the price of Wheat, Soy Beans e.t..c.
because that is where trouble will come from. In the middle east, India and
Pakistan people are going from being middle class to having to choose
between heating and eating! China has enacted price controls - *ensuring* a
shortage (maybe they will shoot some farmers to get the point across that it
is well to produce at a loss)

You can thank the biofuel craze for that. *Planting for burning drives
up food from supply *and* demand sides, plus all the downstream
products--and in other countries--too.

Unintended consequences:

1. Al Gore sounds alarm
2. biofuel craze
3. farmers grow feedstock for cars instead of people

Results:
4. Human misery increased
* a. inflation, locally
* b. food becomes unaffordable in Mexico and Haiti
* c. people starve

5. Environment not improved
* a. replacement food grown, appallingly inefficiently
* b. net CO2 emissions increase

Best wishes,
James Arthur

So they gave the Nobel Peace Prize to a mass murderer.

John

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22902512/

Intentions are fine, but one has to consider one's actions carefully.
"Activists" sometimes fall a little short in this department.

I don't know who actually said it, and that means we give it to Ben
Franklin:

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." -- BF


"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber
baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be
satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us
without end, for they do so with the approval of their own
conscience." - C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock

"John Larkin" skrev i en
meddelelse ...

So they gave the Nobel Peace Prize to a mass murderer.

John


The Peace Price lost all credibility when they gave it to Yassir Arafat!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....unitednations

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:35:22 +0100, in sci.electronics.design
"Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
wrote:


"Jim Thompson" skrev i en
meddelelse ...

http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...%7D&siteid=rss

Feb. 26, 2008

.................................................. ................................................

As the broader market began to regain lost ground, crude prices for
April delivery gained 2.3% to a new high of $101.11 a barrel on the
New York Mercantile Exchange, surpassing crude's last record of
$100.65 hit last week.





...Jim Thompson

What people *should* be watching is the price of Wheat, Soy Beans e.t.c.
because that is where trouble will come from. In the middle east, India and
Pakistan people are going from being middle class to having to choose
between heating and eating! China has enacted price controls - *ensuring* a
shortage (maybe they will shoot some farmers to get the point across that it
is well to produce at a loss)

PS:
And welcome to the brand new regime of Ressource limited growth replacing
Finance limited growth. South Africa's mines are running below capacity due
to lack of electricity.

This sort of sums it up
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3423734.ece

and
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,3838970.story
with links to the UN docs


martin

On Feb 27, 12:27 pm, Martin Griffith wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:35:22 +0100, in sci.electronics.design
"Frithiof Andreas Jensen"



wrote:

"Jim Thompson" skrev i en
...

http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...7B40D68525%2DB...

Feb. 26, 2008

.................................................. ................................................

As the broader market began to regain lost ground, crude prices for
April delivery gained 2.3% to a new high of $101.11 a barrel on the
New York Mercantile Exchange, surpassing crude's last record of
$100.65 hit last week.

...Jim Thompson

What people *should* be watching is the price of Wheat, Soy Beans e.t.c.
because that is where trouble will come from. In the middle east, India and
Pakistan people are going from being middle class to having to choose
between heating and eating! China has enacted price controls - *ensuring* a
shortage (maybe they will shoot some farmers to get the point across that it
is well to produce at a loss)

PS:
And welcome to the brand new regime of Ressource limited growth replacing
Finance limited growth. South Africa's mines are running below capacity due
to lack of electricity.

This sort of sums it uphttp://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natur...

andhttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-food26feb26,0,3838970.story

Not fair--Mr. Bush responds wholeheartedly (if ill-advisedly)--with
Congress in tow--to their (Greens in general, and the LA Times in
particular) criticism about not supporting alternative fuels, then
they lambaste him when he does.

That's not helpful. We need less advocacy & more sensible
discussion. But I suppose it's outrage that sells.

Cheers,
James Arthur

"James Arthur" wrote in message
...
On Feb 27, 12:27 pm, Martin Griffith wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:35:22 +0100, in sci.electronics.design
"Frithiof Andreas Jensen"



wrote:

"Jim Thompson" skrev i
en
...

http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...7B40D68525%2DB...

Feb. 26, 2008

.................................................. ................................................

As the broader market began to regain lost ground, crude prices for
April delivery gained 2.3% to a new high of $101.11 a barrel on the
New York Mercantile Exchange, surpassing crude's last record of
$100.65 hit last week.

...Jim Thompson

What people *should* be watching is the price of Wheat, Soy Beans e.t.c.
because that is where trouble will come from. In the middle east, India
and
Pakistan people are going from being middle class to having to choose
between heating and eating! China has enacted price controls -
*ensuring* a
shortage (maybe they will shoot some farmers to get the point across
that it
is well to produce at a loss)

PS:
And welcome to the brand new regime of Ressource limited growth
replacing
Finance limited growth. South Africa's mines are running below capacity
due
to lack of electricity.

This sort of sums it
uphttp://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natur...

andhttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-food26feb26,0,3838970.story

Not fair--Mr. Bush responds wholeheartedly (if ill-advisedly)--with
Congress in tow--to their (Greens in general, and the LA Times in
particular) criticism about not supporting alternative fuels, then
they lambaste him when he does.

That's not helpful. We need less advocacy & more sensible
discussion. But I suppose it's outrage that sells.

Cheers,
James Arthur



It is more than fair. I'll tell you why, when it comes to do the right
thing, Bush did everything too late. And when it comes to do the wrong
thing, he did it foolishly and very quickly. I'm sorry, I just can't see
how you're going to succeed in convincing people. Did you see his rating
down to 19% now? What are you smoking?




...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et
|
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASICK's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Freedom Abusers, Because of the *******s.

On Feb 27, 1:15 pm, "Jim Thompson" To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com wrote:
"James Arthur" wrote in message

...



On Feb 27, 12:27 pm, Martin Griffith wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:35:22 +0100, in sci.electronics.design
"Frithiof Andreas Jensen"

wrote:

"Jim Thompson" skrev i
en
...

http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...7B40D68525%2DB...

Feb. 26, 2008

.................................................. ................................................

As the broader market began to regain lost ground, crude prices for
April delivery gained 2.3% to a new high of $101.11 a barrel on the
New York Mercantile Exchange, surpassing crude's last record of
$100.65 hit last week.

...Jim Thompson

What people *should* be watching is the price of Wheat, Soy Beans e.t.c.
because that is where trouble will come from. In the middle east, India
and
Pakistan people are going from being middle class to having to choose
between heating and eating! China has enacted price controls -
*ensuring* a
shortage (maybe they will shoot some farmers to get the point across
that it
is well to produce at a loss)

PS:
And welcome to the brand new regime of Ressource limited growth
replacing
Finance limited growth. South Africa's mines are running below capacity
due
to lack of electricity.

This sort of sums it
uphttp://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natur...

andhttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-food26feb26,0,3838970.story

Not fair--Mr. Bush responds wholeheartedly (if ill-advisedly)--with
Congress in tow--to their (Greens in general, and the LA Times in
particular) criticism about not supporting alternative fuels, then
they lambaste him when he does.

That's not helpful. We need less advocacy & more sensible
discussion. But I suppose it's outrage that sells.

Cheers,
James Arthur

It is more than fair.

I mean it's not fair for these same guys to criticize the man for
doing the very thing they demanded he do.

I'll tell you why, when it comes to do the right
thing, Bush did everything too late. And when it comes to do the wrong
thing, he did it foolishly and very quickly.

Mostly no quarrel there, and I agree that biofuel's a bad idea.
Greenies and other conspiracy-types think there's some easy,
suppressed solution. There isn't.

Everyone wants magic, wants it free, and don't bother us with the
details. Government, in the business of pleasing people, is more than
happy to oblige...politicians of both parties *love* to spend money on
their constituents, no matter what the cause.

Cheers,
James Arthur

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:08:58 -0800 (PST), in sci.electronics.design
James Arthur wrote:

On Feb 27, 12:27 pm, Martin Griffith wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:35:22 +0100, in sci.electronics.design
"Frithiof Andreas Jensen"



wrote:

"Jim Thompson" skrev i en
...

http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...7B40D68525%2DB...

Feb. 26, 2008

.................................................. ................................................

As the broader market began to regain lost ground, crude prices for
April delivery gained 2.3% to a new high of $101.11 a barrel on the
New York Mercantile Exchange, surpassing crude's last record of
$100.65 hit last week.

...Jim Thompson

What people *should* be watching is the price of Wheat, Soy Beans e.t.c.
because that is where trouble will come from. In the middle east, India and
Pakistan people are going from being middle class to having to choose
between heating and eating! China has enacted price controls - *ensuring* a
shortage (maybe they will shoot some farmers to get the point across that it
is well to produce at a loss)

PS:
And welcome to the brand new regime of Ressource limited growth replacing
Finance limited growth. South Africa's mines are running below capacity due
to lack of electricity.

This sort of sums it uphttp://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natur...

andhttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-food26feb26,0,3838970.story

Not fair--Mr. Bush responds wholeheartedly (if ill-advisedly)--with
Congress in tow--to their (Greens in general, and the LA Times in
particular) criticism about not supporting alternative fuels, then
they lambaste him when he does.

That's not helpful. We need less advocacy & more sensible
discussion. But I suppose it's outrage that sells.

Cheers,
James Arthur
I didn't wite them, they are just 2 links that I found while waiting
for the first cup of coffee to boil, this morning. When does the US
wheat harvest start, I think I saw it was about 10 weeks from now?


martin

On Feb 27, 1:15 pm, Martin Griffith wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:08:58 -0800 (PST), James Arthur wrote:
On Feb 27, 12:27 pm, Martin Griffith wrote:

[...]

This sort of sums it uphttp://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natur...

andhttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-food26feb26,0,3838970.story

Not fair--Mr. Bush responds wholeheartedly (if ill-advisedly)--with
Congress in tow--to their (Greens in general, and the LA Times in
particular) criticism about not supporting alternative fuels, then
they lambaste him when he does.

That's not helpful. We need less advocacy & more sensible
discussion. But I suppose it's outrage that sells.

I didn't wite them, they are just 2 links that I found while waiting
for the first cup of coffee to boil, this morning.

No worries--I enjoyed the articles and appreciated the links. I'm
glad to see the public finally wising up to what I saw as a bad idea
(environmentally & economically) from the start.

My frustration was with the LA Times, not with you.

Best wishes,
James Arthur

On Feb 27, 9:35*am, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
wrote:

China has enacted price controls - *ensuring* a
shortage (maybe they will shoot some farmers to get
the point across that it is well to produce at a loss)

Paging Bill Sloman. lol

It is very likely, the crude oil price per barrel may get up to about
$120 to $140 by the mid or end of the summer. The reasons are many.
This means that the price of fuel will most likely rise by at least
another 20%. There are futures contracts out on crude oil for a price
point of $200 per barrel by year 2010.

The price of oil is rising faster than the normal rate of inflation.
This will contribute to the cost of most everything we have. The rate
of infation will be difficult to keep up with.

One of the causes for all of this is from the massive out-sourcing of
manufacturing in foreign countries to have lower labour cost, and from
letting our society become more dependend on other countries for
energy and materials.

From all that is going on, North America and most of Europe will
become a third world economy. We will no longer be able to afford to
live at the standard of living that we are used to. It will take a
very big change of attitude and the way of doing things to fix the
problem.



Jerry G.
======


On Feb 26, 11:59*pm, "Jim Thompson" To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com wrote:
http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...7B40D68525%2DB...

Feb. 26, 2008

.................................................. ..........................*.......................

As the broader market began to regain lost ground, crude prices for
April delivery gained 2.3% to a new high of $101.11 a barrel on the
New York Mercantile Exchange, surpassing crude's last record of
$100.65 hit last week.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ...Jim Thompson
--
| *James E.Thompson, P.E. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * |
mens |
| *Analog Innovations, Inc. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *|
et * * *|
| *Analog/Mixed-Signal ASICK's and Discrete Systems *| * *manus *|
| *Phoenix, Arizona * * * * * * * * * Voice480)460-2350 *| * * * * * * |
| *E-mail Address at Website * * Fax480)460-2142 * * | *Brass Rat *|
| * * *http://www.analog-innovations.com* * * * * * * * * *| * *1962 * * |

* * *America: Land of the Freedom Abusers, Because of the *******s.

On Feb 28, 12:33 pm, "Jerry G." wrote:
It is very likely, the crude oil price per barrel may get up to about
$120 to $140 by the mid or end of the summer. The reasons are many.
This means that the price of fuel will most likely rise by at least
another 20%.

So why didn't the petrol price go up 700% since oil was $15 back in
1999?
As you say, the reasons are many, but one thing is for sure, petrol
prices have had very little in the way of linear correlation with oil
price.

Dave.

"David L. Jones" wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 12:33 pm, "Jerry G." wrote:
It is very likely, the crude oil price per barrel may get up to about
$120 to $140 by the mid or end of the summer. The reasons are many.
This means that the price of fuel will most likely rise by at least
another 20%.

So why didn't the petrol price go up 700% since oil was $15 back in
1999?
As you say, the reasons are many, but one thing is for sure, petrol
prices have had very little in the way of linear correlation with oil
price.

Dave.



Hey Dave you are already right there, depending on how you look at it.

($15/b * 700%)/100 = $105/b

PS. Every one of you are being affected except me and the one I have chosen
to help.


...Jim Thompson


--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et
|
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASICK's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 |
|
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Rat ******* |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Freedom Abusers, Because of the Rat *******s.

Jim Thompson wrote:
"David L. Jones" wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 12:33 pm, "Jerry G." wrote:
It is very likely, the crude oil price per barrel may get up to about
$120 to $140 by the mid or end of the summer. The reasons are many.
This means that the price of fuel will most likely rise by at least
another 20%.
So why didn't the petrol price go up 700% since oil was $15 back in
1999?
As you say, the reasons are many, but one thing is for sure, petrol
prices have had very little in the way of linear correlation with oil
price.

Dave.



Hey Dave you are already right there, depending on how you look at it.

($15/b * 700%)/100 = $105/b

PS. Every one of you are being affected except me and the one I have chosen
to help.


...Jim Thompson



What a blazing idiot. You are so obvious from the content of your
forgeries. Who has to look at the headers any more. Go away forever.

On Feb 27, 5:47*pm, "David L. Jones" wrote:
On Feb 28, 12:33 pm, "Jerry G." wrote:

It is very likely, the crude oil price per barrel may get up to about
$120 to $140 by the mid or end of the summer. The reasons are many.
This means that the price of fuel will most likely rise by at least
another 20%.

So why didn't the petrol price go up 700% since oil was $15 back in
1999?
As you say, the reasons are many, but one thing is for sure, petrol
prices have had very little in the way of linear correlation with oil
price.

Dave.

The popular price per barrel quoted in the news is the spot market
price, and ignores the oil refined within vertically-integrated
companies and oil delivered under long-term, fixed-price contracts.

Richard Henry wrote:
On Feb 27, 5:47 pm, "David L. Jones" wrote:
On Feb 28, 12:33 pm, "Jerry G." wrote:

It is very likely, the crude oil price per barrel may get up to about
$120 to $140 by the mid or end of the summer. The reasons are many.
This means that the price of fuel will most likely rise by at least
another 20%.
So why didn't the petrol price go up 700% since oil was $15 back in
1999?
As you say, the reasons are many, but one thing is for sure, petrol
prices have had very little in the way of linear correlation with oil
price.

Dave.

The popular price per barrel quoted in the news is the spot market
price, and ignores the oil refined within vertically-integrated
companies and oil delivered under long-term, fixed-price contracts.


But those prices are not the news with which you can manipulate the sheeple.

On Feb 29, 11:03 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Feb 27, 5:47 pm, "David L. Jones" wrote:

On Feb 28, 12:33 pm, "Jerry G." wrote:

It is very likely, the crude oil price per barrel may get up to about
$120 to $140 by the mid or end of the summer. The reasons are many.
This means that the price of fuel will most likely rise by at least
another 20%.

So why didn't the petrol price go up 700% since oil was $15 back in
1999?
As you say, the reasons are many, but one thing is for sure, petrol
prices have had very little in the way of linear correlation with oil
price.

Dave.

The popular price per barrel quoted in the news is the spot market
price, and ignores the oil refined within vertically-integrated
companies and oil delivered under long-term, fixed-price contracts.

The oil within a vertically integrated company is worth as much as the
price on the spot market because they have the option of refining it
or selling it raw. The spot market is a good but nervous indicator of
the price of oil. The long term contracts will all end some day and a
new contract be written at the new higher price. The trend is
smoothened by that effect but the average rate of increase is not
reduced.

On Mar 2, 10:03*am, MooseFET wrote:
On Feb 29, 11:03 am, Richard Henry wrote:





On Feb 27, 5:47 pm, "David L. Jones" wrote:

On Feb 28, 12:33 pm, "Jerry G." wrote:

It is very likely, the crude oil price per barrel may get up to about
$120 to $140 by the mid or end of the summer. The reasons are many.
This means that the price of fuel will most likely rise by at least
another 20%.

So why didn't the petrol price go up 700% since oil was $15 back in
1999?
As you say, the reasons are many, but one thing is for sure, petrol
prices have had very little in the way of linear correlation with oil
price.

Dave.

The popular price per barrel quoted in the *news is the spot market
price, and ignores the oil refined within vertically-integrated
companies and oil delivered under long-term, fixed-price contracts.

The oil within a vertically integrated company is worth as much as the
price on the spot market because they have the option of refining it
or selling it raw. *The spot market is a good but nervous indicator of
the price of oil. *The long term contracts will all end some day and a
new contract be written at the new higher price. *The trend is
smoothened by that effect but the average rate of increase is not
reduced.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The oil within a vertically integrated company is worth what it can be
sold for. Introducing large stocks into the open market will reduce
the spot price.

Long term contracts are set at a price point where both the buyer and
seller think they will make money over the term of the contract.

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:33:08 -0800 (PST), "Jerry G."
wrote:

It is very likely, the crude oil price per barrel may get up to about
$120 to $140 by the mid or end of the summer. The reasons are many.
This means that the price of fuel will most likely rise by at least
another 20%. There are futures contracts out on crude oil for a price
point of $200 per barrel by year 2010.

The price of oil is rising faster than the normal rate of inflation.
This will contribute to the cost of most everything we have. The rate
of infation will be difficult to keep up with.

One of the causes for all of this is from the massive out-sourcing of
manufacturing in foreign countries to have lower labour cost, and from
letting our society become more dependend on other countries for
energy and materials.

From all that is going on, North America and most of Europe will
become a third world economy. We will no longer be able to afford to
live at the standard of living that we are used to. It will take a
very big change of attitude and the way of doing things to fix the
problem.

What we won't be able to afford is wasting energy as senselessly as we
do now. The average USian could cut his energy use in half without
extreme distress.

The main cause of the energy shortage is the fact that the Chinese,
the Indians, the Africans, and the South Americans are increasing both
population and per-capita energy use. Imagine if every family in India
and every family in China had central heating and a car.

We have something they don't: an enormous capacity to make food.

John

John Larkin wrote:
We have something they don't: an enormous capacity to make food.

A very large percentage of that capability is due to the use of
nitrogenous fertilizers, manufactured from natural or petroleum
gas via the Haber-Bosch process for ammonia. The Chinese make
more than a quarter of the world's production, but basically -
guess what - the ability to store energy in your cereal crops and
in your "biofuels", comes predominantly from below the ground,
not from the sun. Without fossil fertilizer, 90% of the world's
production of grain would cease.

The fossil fuel crisis is first and foremost a *food* crisis, the
cost of fuel for transport is just the leading edge.

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:08:07 +1100, Clifford Heath
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
We have something they don't: an enormous capacity to make food.

A very large percentage of that capability is due to the use of
nitrogenous fertilizers, manufactured from natural or petroleum
gas via the Haber-Bosch process for ammonia. The Chinese make
more than a quarter of the world's production, but basically -
guess what - the ability to store energy in your cereal crops and
in your "biofuels", comes predominantly from below the ground,
not from the sun. Without fossil fertilizer, 90% of the world's
production of grain would cease.

The fossil fuel crisis is first and foremost a *food* crisis, the
cost of fuel for transport is just the leading edge.


Well, just think about the negotiation sessions:

"We have food. You have oil. Wanna do business?"


John