(N2EY) wrote in message ...

Does anyone have a realistic estimate of how much it will cost and how long it
will take to develop Russian oil to the point where it undercuts crude from the
Middle East in total production cost? (drilling, pumping, infrastructure,
transportation, refining)?

So, rather than spend the bucks and get it done, we continue to
hang our hats on the Arab's bedposts until all of THAT oil is gone,
THEN go looking?

Remember that much of Russia's oil is in places as inhospitable and undeveloped
as Alaska. And there's the added problem that the folks there don't necessarily
play by American rules....

And the Arabs do?

Besides...Russians and Americans are closer in social and
geopolitical ideologies than Americans and those folks in the Middle
East and SW Asia...

In other words, we should trust the Russians?

I trust them more. I never did foresee a nuclear war between us.
The true threat has been from some upstart trying to be the new kid
on the block or someone looking to drive a wedge between us and the
Russians.

So let's spend our money where it's appreciated.

Sure.

But perhaps we should also consider reducing our dependence on imported energy.

I'd agree with that, but getting the rest of America to is a
problem. We've had the technology to exploit many non-petroleum or
hybrid petroleum alternatives for decades. And even where there are
other US-controlled petro reserves, we ahve our own people fighting
our attempts to recover them.

73

Steve, K4YZ

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message ...

Does anyone have a realistic estimate of how much it will cost and how long it
will take to develop Russian oil to the point where it undercuts crude from the
Middle East in total production cost? (drilling, pumping, infrastructure,
transportation, refining)?

So, rather than spend the bucks and get it done, we continue to
hang our hats on the Arab's bedposts until all of THAT oil is gone,
THEN go looking?

Not at all! If nothing else, economic development of that area will
help stabilize their political situation.

But we must dispel ourselves of the idea that there's a quick, cheap
and easy fix.

And you might want to look up just how much oil the USA imports from
the Middle East. It's not as much as many people think.

Remember that much of Russia's oil is in places as inhospitable and undeveloped
as Alaska. And there's the added problem that the folks there don't necessarily
play by American rules....

And the Arabs do?

More so than you might imagine ;-)

Point is, Russian oil isn't a quick, cheap and easy fix.

Besides...Russians and Americans are closer in social and
geopolitical ideologies than Americans and those folks in the Middle
East and SW Asia...

In other words, we should trust the Russians?

I trust them more. I never did foresee a nuclear war between us.

I always thought that the biggest danger was that a war would start by
mistake rather than intent.

That doesn't mean the Soviets never wanted to take over, just that
they never wanted to take over a burnt out radioactive cinder of a
world.

The true threat has been from some upstart trying to be the new kid
on the block or someone looking to drive a wedge between us and the
Russians.

Or somebody who didn't really care if they or their society survived
or not.

So let's spend our money where it's appreciated.

Sure.

But perhaps we should also consider reducing our dependence on imported energy.

I'd agree with that, but getting the rest of America to is a
problem.

Exactly!

The solutions are always on the supply side, as if demand is sacred.
Heaven forbid anyone say that putting 25,000 miles per year on a
vehicle that gets 15 MPG isn't an inalienable right.

We've had the technology to exploit many non-petroleum or
hybrid petroleum alternatives for decades.

In 1980 I bought a car that got over 40 mpg in the city and over 50
mpg on the road. And it weighed 2200+ pounds, met all the pollution
and safety requirements and was fun to drive. No ignition noise,
either. Of course it was small, but it was big enough for
six-foot-three-inch me and lots of stuff besides.

But cars like that aren't what Americans are told to want, so most of
them don't. They're not "babe magnets".

And if someone suggests that there may be better ways to travel than
4000 pound 250+ HP private cars, and jet airplanes, they're called
"socialists" and "tree huggers"....

And even where there are
other US-controlled petro reserves, we ahve our own people fighting
our attempts to recover them.

Think about why. Does the name Exxon Valdez ring a bell? "What do we
do with a drunken sailor......"

Also check put how much oil those reserves would actually supply if
fully developed. And how much it costs...

And remember that one point of the philosophy is to preserve *our*
reserves...

Also recall what event sparked the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. It
was FDR's decision to effectively stop the sales of oil, steel and
other strategic materials to Japan in response to their war of
aggression in China. Most important of these to Japan was the the
supply of oil, because without it their war machine would not be able
to function for long. So they decided to attack and hopefully win a
quick war that would secure for them a secure source of oil in
Southeast Asia and the surrounding areas. Yet they missed a key target
in their attack planning: they never attacked the tank farm above
Pearl Harbor. And in the end they found themselves short of oil
because American submarines and aircraft were sinking their tankers
faster than they could be replaced.

Then there's Ploesti.....

In the end, I say we need to focus on being self-sufficient for basic
necessities - and *all* of the changes needed to bring that about.
Energy supply is a basic necessity for an industrial society.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message ...

Does anyone have a realistic estimate of how much it will cost and how long it
will take to develop Russian oil to the point where it undercuts crude from the
Middle East in total production cost? (drilling, pumping, infrastructure,
transportation, refining)?

So, rather than spend the bucks and get it done, we continue to
hang our hats on the Arab's bedposts until all of THAT oil is gone,
THEN go looking?

Not at all! If nothing else, economic development of that area will
help stabilize their political situation.

But we must dispel ourselves of the idea that there's a quick, cheap
and easy fix.

I don't think any way is cheap or easy, Jim. It's jsut a matter
of idealogy...I'd rather my money went to Russians than to people who
think it's OK to treat women like property and use children as "human
shields".

And you might want to look up just how much oil the USA imports from
the Middle East. It's not as much as many people think.

It's got to be enough to keep OPEC rich, though...I don't see too
many soup lines in Saudi Arabia.

Remember that much of Russia's oil is in places as inhospitable and undeveloped
as Alaska. And there's the added problem that the folks there don't necessarily
play by American rules....

And the Arabs do?

More so than you might imagine ;-)

I've been over there before, Jim...Back when Soddom...I meant
Saddam... was our "friend". I didn't like them as friends, so I can
only imagine what it's like for the guys over there now.

Point is, Russian oil isn't a quick, cheap and easy fix.

Besides...Russians and Americans are closer in social and
geopolitical ideologies than Americans and those folks in the Middle
East and SW Asia...

In other words, we should trust the Russians?

I trust them more. I never did foresee a nuclear war between us.

I always thought that the biggest danger was that a war would start by
mistake rather than intent.

That doesn't mean the Soviets never wanted to take over, just that
they never wanted to take over a burnt out radioactive cinder of a
world.

The Russians wouldn't nuke us cuz they'd want to occupy us
afterwards. The Rags will nuke us because Allah said to, and be happy
to do it, consequences be damned.

The true threat has been from some upstart trying to be the new kid
on the block or someone looking to drive a wedge between us and the
Russians.

Or somebody who didn't really care if they or their society survived
or not.

That seven virgins thing sounds pretty good to enough of them, it
seems...I can only accept that they will continue thier current path
unless we find a way to derail them. Nuking them is out of the
question and biological weapons can't be controlled. I say we cut off
thier money and let them go back to using camels for transportation
instead of physical gratification.

So let's spend our money where it's appreciated.

Sure.

But perhaps we should also consider reducing our dependence on imported energy.

I'd agree with that, but getting the rest of America to is a
problem.

Exactly!

The solutions are always on the supply side, as if demand is sacred.
Heaven forbid anyone say that putting 25,000 miles per year on a
vehicle that gets 15 MPG isn't an inalienable right.

We've had the technology to exploit many non-petroleum or
hybrid petroleum alternatives for decades.

In 1980 I bought a car that got over 40 mpg in the city and over 50
mpg on the road. And it weighed 2200+ pounds, met all the pollution
and safety requirements and was fun to drive. No ignition noise,
either. Of course it was small, but it was big enough for
six-foot-three-inch me and lots of stuff besides.

But cars like that aren't what Americans are told to want, so most of
them don't. They're not "babe magnets".

I owned a "babe magnet" once...till I found out I was the
babe magnet, not the car! ! ! (Well...a guy can have his dreams,
can't he...?!?!)

And if someone suggests that there may be better ways to travel than
4000 pound 250+ HP private cars, and jet airplanes, they're called
"socialists" and "tree huggers"....

And even where there are
other US-controlled petro reserves, we ahve our own people fighting
our attempts to recover them.

Think about why. Does the name Exxon Valdez ring a bell? "What do we
do with a drunken sailor......"

He was only half the problem...the other half was the oil
companies that cut costs on single-hulled tankers.

Also check put how much oil those reserves would actually supply if
fully developed. And how much it costs...

And remember that one point of the philosophy is to preserve *our*
reserves...

Also recall what event sparked the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. It
was FDR's decision to effectively stop the sales of oil, steel and
other strategic materials to Japan in response to their war of
aggression in China. Most important of these to Japan was the the
supply of oil, because without it their war machine would not be able
to function for long. So they decided to attack and hopefully win a
quick war that would secure for them a secure source of oil in
Southeast Asia and the surrounding areas. Yet they missed a key target
in their attack planning: they never attacked the tank farm above
Pearl Harbor. And in the end they found themselves short of oil
because American submarines and aircraft were sinking their tankers
faster than they could be replaced.

Then there's Ploesti.....

In the end, I say we need to focus on being self-sufficient for basic
necessities - and *all* of the changes needed to bring that about.
Energy supply is a basic necessity for an industrial society.

I'd say you're right!

73

Steve, K4YZ

"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...
(N2EY) wrote in message
. com...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message
. com...
(N2EY) wrote in message
...

Does anyone have a realistic estimate of how much it will cost and
how long it
will take to develop Russian oil to the point where it undercuts
crude from the
Middle East in total production cost? (drilling, pumping,
infrastructure,
transportation, refining)?

So, rather than spend the bucks and get it done, we continue to
hang our hats on the Arab's bedposts until all of THAT oil is gone,
THEN go looking?

Not at all! If nothing else, economic development of that area will
help stabilize their political situation.

But we must dispel ourselves of the idea that there's a quick, cheap
and easy fix.

I don't think any way is cheap or easy, Jim. It's jsut a matter
of idealogy...I'd rather my money went to Russians than to people who
think it's OK to treat women like property and use children as "human
shields".

73

Steve, K4YZ


Damn. I'd rather a majority of "our money" (it's really the government's)
go right here...in the United States...to rebuild and repair our
infrastructure, to all education levels, to assist in the social and civil
disasters that are taking place right here within the boundaries of our 50
states. : |

Kim W5TIT

"Kim" wrote in message ...

I'd rather a majority of "our money" (it's really the government's)
go right here...in the United States...to rebuild and repair our
infrastructure, to all education levels, to assist in the social and civil
disasters that are taking place right here within the boundaries of our 50
states. : |

So would I, Kim. Plus a balanced budget.

But it's easy to say that. The hard part is deciding how much you're
willing to give up to make it happen. By "give up", I mean things like
higher taxes, higher prices on many things, lifestyle changes, a
redeining of the USA's role in world politics, etc.

For example, would you be willing to pay the same prices for fuel that
Western Europeans do? Much of the difference is taxes, not production
cost. That's why so many Western European countries have such good
roads, trains and transit systems - because much of the fuel tax goes
to support clean, efficient public transportation.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

For example, would you be willing to pay the same prices for fuel that
Western Europeans do? Much of the difference is taxes, not production
cost. That's why so many Western European countries have such good
roads, trains and transit systems - because much of the fuel tax goes
to support clean, efficient public transportation.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim:

Most EU countries are much better suited for mass transit (meaning light rail
systems) than is the U.S. as a whole. Sure, they're good in big cities, but
the
USA has too many wide open spaces and too much suburban sprawl -- making
long commutes necessary for the majority of the workforce. This means we're
going to be dependent on personal, self-driven vehicles for a long time to
come. Moreover, I don't think that adapting our public transit systems to be
as accessible and accommodating to the majority of commuters as those in the EU
would cost far more than they are spending. Remember, they had a headstart on
their transit systems, dating back to the pre-war era. They also have a higher
level of cultural acceptence of mass transit -- many EU families have never
owned an automobile, simply because there was no need (not to mention the
prohibitive cost).

The long distances which must be travelled by most Americans to get to work and
go about their daily duties would make EU-style gasoline prices impossible for
the average person to afford. Our economy depends on cheap, abundant energy,
available at present-day market rates (or lower) basically in perpetuity. The
liberal, socialist Democrats think we need to change that and have EU-type
energy prices, but they hate this country anyway, and want us to be subjugated
to the EU. These treasonous wackos won't be happy until we revert to a totally
agrarian society. They are the enemies of the freedom that America stands for,
and must be treated as such.

Europe will always be different from the U.S., and considering their
geopolitical realities, it is just the way it should be. However, since most
of the EU nations would fit inside a couple of our states, America must be
different. We must consume a larger share of the world's energy simply because
we have a lot further to go in order to make our own individual social and
economic contributions. I agree that mass transit should be exploited to the
greatest extent possible, but it will never replace the need for individual,
personal mobility -- meaning the private automobile, in all of it's forms.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:


Jim:

Most EU countries are much better suited for mass transit (meaning light rail
systems) than is the U.S. as a whole. Sure, they're good in big cities, but
the
USA has too many wide open spaces and too much suburban sprawl -- making
long commutes necessary for the majority of the workforce. This means we're
going to be dependent on personal, self-driven vehicles for a long time to
come. Moreover, I don't think that adapting our public transit systems to be
as accessible and accommodating to the majority of commuters as those in the EU
would cost far more than they are spending. Remember, they had a headstart on
their transit systems, dating back to the pre-war era. They also have a higher
level of cultural acceptence of mass transit -- many EU families have never
owned an automobile, simply because there was no need (not to mention the
prohibitive cost).

The long distances which must be travelled by most Americans to get to work and
go about their daily duties would make EU-style gasoline prices impossible for
the average person to afford. Our economy depends on cheap, abundant energy,
available at present-day market rates (or lower) basically in perpetuity. The
liberal, socialist Democrats think we need to change that and have EU-type
energy prices, but they hate this country anyway, and want us to be subjugated
to the EU. These treasonous wackos won't be happy until we revert to a totally
agrarian society. They are the enemies of the freedom that America stands for,
and must be treated as such.

Europe will always be different from the U.S., and considering their
geopolitical realities, it is just the way it should be. However, since most
of the EU nations would fit inside a couple of our states, America must be
different. We must consume a larger share of the world's energy simply because
we have a lot further to go in order to make our own individual social and
economic contributions. I agree that mass transit should be exploited to the
greatest extent possible, but it will never replace the need for individual,
personal mobility -- meaning the private automobile, in all of it's forms.

73 de Larry, K3LT

The U.S. does need to develope better mass transit in large
metropolitian areas. When I lived in the Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas area,
the two cities were always complaining about the heavy commute traffic
and how they were not using the available mass transit system. The would
encourage people to car pool or use what mass transit was available, all
the while they were expanding the freeway system to accomodate more
vehicles. If you want people to use mass transit you have to 1) build a
good mass transit system, and 2) don't build massive freeway systems
that make it easier for people to drive their vehicles to work than ride
mass transit.

ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

For example, would you be willing to pay the same prices for fuel that
Western Europeans do? Much of the difference is taxes, not production
cost. That's why so many Western European countries have such good
roads, trains and transit systems - because much of the fuel tax goes
to support clean, efficient public transportation.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim:

Most EU countries are much better suited for mass transit (meaning light rail
systems) than is the U.S. as a whole. Sure, they're good in big cities, but
the
USA has too many wide open spaces and too much suburban sprawl -- making
long commutes necessary for the majority of the workforce.

We can't fix the wide open spaces, but we *can* do something about
suburban sprawl.

The transportation situations in the USA and Europe are the way they
are today because of choices made by *people*. Where and how to live,
work and vacation/recreate, what sort of house and car to buy, what
politicians to elect, etc. etc.

This means we're
going to be dependent on personal, self-driven vehicles for a long time to
come.

And the time to start changing that is now. Doesn't mean we have to
give up our cars, just that we can develop and implement alternatives.

Moreover, I don't think that adapting our public transit systems to be
as accessible and accommodating to the majority of commuters as those in the EU would cost far more than they are spending.

Most transit systems in the USA struggle to continue operations. A lot
of that is due to factors like precarious funding.

Remember, they had a headstart on
their transit systems, dating back to the pre-war era.

You have to be kidding!

The USA had extensive mass transit long before WW1. Much of it was
*removed* and *destroyed* after WW2 in the USA. In EU, much of it was
*destroyed* in WW2 and rebuilt afterwards.

It's all about choices.

They also have a higher
level of cultural acceptence of mass transit -- many EU families have never
owned an automobile, simply because there was no need (not to mention the
prohibitive cost).

The USA used to be like that, in many places. I grew up in suburban
Philadelphia, and most families had only one car. And we kids did not
*need* auto transportation to do everything a kid usually does.
School, sports, church, running errands for Mom and Dad, visiting
friends, the library, etc. - none of that required auto transport.
Most of it didn't even require a bike.

And for some pocket change, we could go almost anywhere in the city or
surrounding suburbs.

The long distances which must be travelled by most Americans to get to work and
go about their daily duties would make EU-style gasoline prices impossible for
the average person to afford.

Only if we insist on driving inefficient cars as much as we do now.

Our economy depends on cheap, abundant energy,
available at present-day market rates (or lower) basically in perpetuity.

That can and must be changed. It makes us too vulnerable. It's a
national security issue.

The
liberal, socialist Democrats think we need to change that and have EU-type
energy prices, but they hate this country anyway, and want us to be subjugated
to the EU.

These treasonous wackos won't be happy until we revert to a totally
agrarian society. They are the enemies of the freedom that America stands
for, and must be treated as such.

That's pure bull****, Larry. Pure unadulterated bull****. There's no
other word for it.

It's not about liberals or conservatives, Republicans or Democrats.
It's about sound engineering and planning for the future.

How much "freedom" is there in being at the economic mercy of foreign
governments deciding to reduce the production of oil, or jack up its
price artificially, as was done twice in the 1970s?

How much "treason" is there in saying that the USA should be as
self-reliant as possible so that we don't have to do business with
(and line the pockets of) anyone who doesn't support our principles of
freedom?

How "wacko" is it to realize that clean air and water aren't luxuries
but necessities - and that they cost less than the health problems
resulting from pollution?

Europe will always be different from the U.S., and considering their
geopolitical realities, it is just the way it should be. However, since most
of the EU nations would fit inside a couple of our states, America must be
different.

Of course!

I'm *not* saying we must give up our cars. Just reduce our dependence
on them, and increase their efficiency. It *can* be done, if we choose
to do it.

We must consume a larger share of the world's energy simply
because
we have a lot further to go in order to make our own individual social and
economic contributions.

Not true at all.

The key is *efficiency*.

Consider this:

Half a century ago, the New York Central's 20th Century Limited ran a
consistent 16 hour schedule from New York to Chicago. That's 961 miles
in 960 minutes, including engine change at Harmon, at least ten
station stops, bridges, curves, grades, etc. On jointed rail and
wooden ties with steam and first-generation diesel locomotives. 16
hours downtown to downtown, and the service was dependable and
comfortable.

That sort of travel was largely replaced by air travel, which only
takes about a two-hour flight. However, it takes at least an hour to
get to and from the airport, and with security you need to be at the
airport two hours before flight time, so the *real* travel time is
more like six hours, downtown to downtown.

The French TGV trains run at close to 200 mph in revenue service. (You
don't want to know how fast they have gone in tests). That sort of
technology could cut the NYC-Chicago time down to about six hours if
station stops were limited - and it's safer, pollutes less, and is
much more efficient than air travel or private autos. And it's less
affected by weather. Imagine the country linked by such a highspeed
system, with local transit to complete the journey.

And that's just one example of existing technology. Don't you think
Americans could improve on that?

The only problem is making the *choice* to do it.

I agree that mass transit should be exploited to the
greatest extent possible, but it will never replace the need for individual,
personal mobility -- meaning the private automobile, in all of it's forms.

Nor does it need to!

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Kim" wrote in message
...

I'd rather a majority of "our money" (it's really the government's)
go right here...in the United States...to rebuild and repair our
infrastructure, to all education levels, to assist in the social and
civil
disasters that are taking place right here within the boundaries of our
50
states. : |

So would I, Kim. Plus a balanced budget.

But it's easy to say that. The hard part is deciding how much you're
willing to give up to make it happen. By "give up", I mean things like
higher taxes, higher prices on many things, lifestyle changes, a
redeining of the USA's role in world politics, etc.

For example, would you be willing to pay the same prices for fuel that
Western Europeans do? Much of the difference is taxes, not production
cost. That's why so many Western European countries have such good
roads, trains and transit systems - because much of the fuel tax goes
to support clean, efficient public transportation.

73 de Jim, N2EY


You know what? I am not so sure that it would take all that much, Jim. I
am not even going to pretend to be a financier, but I wonder how much of the
Federal Budget, i.e. your and my tax dollars, get spent away from our
country. Then, how much foreign debt is "forgiven" each year? It goes on,
I was thinking about this on the way to work this morning: oh yeah,
not-so-smart subsidies, grants, etc. Salaries on superfluous government
personnel *and* programs. I mean, a real mowing down of all the debt that
is incurred each year, against what really, really needs to be spent.
Pretty quick, and I doubt your dipping into peoples' pockets much at
all...really.

But, if it meant a) one tax for all--no tax breaks for any, at about 10-14%
per person and entity, b) taxing even religious institutions--anything
outside of actual *church* and parish properties, c) cutting the fat from
the equation, both in terms of programs and personnel; and there was still a
need for higher taxes, I'd be willing to pay my *fair* share.

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Kim" wrote in message
...

I'd rather a majority of "our money" (it's really the government's)
go right here...in the United States...to rebuild and repair our
infrastructure, to all education levels, to assist in the social and
civil
disasters that are taking place right here within the boundaries of
our
50
states. : |

So would I, Kim. Plus a balanced budget.

But it's easy to say that. The hard part is deciding how much you're
willing to give up to make it happen. By "give up", I mean things like
higher taxes, higher prices on many things, lifestyle changes, a
redeining of the USA's role in world politics, etc.

For example, would you be willing to pay the same prices for fuel that
Western Europeans do? Much of the difference is taxes, not production
cost. That's why so many Western European countries have such good
roads, trains and transit systems - because much of the fuel tax goes
to support clean, efficient public transportation.

73 de Jim, N2EY


You know what? I am not so sure that it would take all that much, Jim. I
am not even going to pretend to be a financier, but I wonder how much of
the
Federal Budget, i.e. your and my tax dollars, get spent away from our
country. Then, how much foreign debt is "forgiven" each year? It goes
on,
I was thinking about this on the way to work this morning: oh yeah,
not-so-smart subsidies, grants, etc. Salaries on superfluous government
personnel *and* programs. I mean, a real mowing down of all the debt that
is incurred each year, against what really, really needs to be spent.
Pretty quick, and I doubt your dipping into peoples' pockets much at
all...really.

But, if it meant a) one tax for all--no tax breaks for any, at about
10-14%
per person and entity, b) taxing even religious institutions--anything
outside of actual *church* and parish properties, c) cutting the fat from
the equation, both in terms of programs and personnel; and there was still
a
need for higher taxes, I'd be willing to pay my *fair* share.

Kim W5TIT



The average person is already paying nearly half their income in taxes if
you include all taxes plus the ones you pay indirectly. This is hardly
reasonable nor would it be reasonable for anyone to pay even more.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE