We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
#271
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The are Buildlng a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant in PA
In article <fNqcnUTkNsTO_dTZUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
> That can be easily accomplished, elect more democrats, they are very
> proficient at figuring ways to increase taxes. Currently the federal and
> state governments ALL make more per gallon on gasoline than do the oil
> companies or the retailers. The federal tax is .185c per gallon and the
> average state tax is .28c a gallon. Some states like California also add
> their sales tax to gasoline in addition to the motor fuel tax. Some states
> add to your cost of food by taxing fuels used in farming. Search the
> Congressional Record and you will see the recent investigation of the oil
> industry, in by the House Energy Committee, showed the oil companies
> averaged around 15c a gallon and retailers .05c
>
> mike hunt
Exactly Mike. IF the dimmies get in control they will tax the feel good
crowd while giving them high honors for conserving, also a little pat on
the rump, LOL.
For me increased gas prices don't have much of an impact because I don't
drive that much any more. I either walk or ride a bike for short trips,
it's much more healthy anyway. BTW, if the socialists do gain control,
we'll have absolutely nothing to worry about. They will build huge
amounts of condominiums and force those of us who have our own home and
property out and into condos. This, the socialists say will be more
efficient and tax friendly, for them. LOL.
>
>
> "The BEnevolent dbu" <Relaxand@smeltherose.comm> wrote in message
> news:Relaxand-B60771.16340321042006@news-rdr-03.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > In article <moci42lra55nf3tvkls793obmkj42b6ccr@4ax.com>,
> > Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 12:56:09 -0500, "DH" <dh@stargate.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Tom The Great" <Post@here.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:s83i42tlgvuba7aeq8aglq8kfg1qfjd04r@4ax.com.. .
> >> >> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 10:42:31 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
> >> >> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >That may well be if the price of crude get high enough to make the
> >> >process
> >> >> >competitive. Consumers are not going to buy higher cost alternative
> >> >fuels
> >> >> >just to save the planet. they will only do so when they can save
> >> >> >money.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >mike hunt
> >> >>
> >> >> Very true mike, that is why governments artificially inflate costs
> >> >> through taxation and regulation, to force us to either reduce, or use
> >> >> other high cost solutions.
> >> >>
> >> >> Example: High federal and state taxes on gasoline, that contribute
> >> >> zero to the finished product. Forcing us to buy smaller cars, or pay
> >> >> higher taxes.
> >> >>
> >> >> later,
> >> >>
> >> >> tom @ www.IRantAndRave.com
> >> >
> >> >What high federal and state taxes on gasoline are those? Gas taxes
> >> >don't
> >> >even cover the cost of the highway system.
> >> >
> >> >If gasoline was paying its way, the taxes on it would cover the highway
> >> >system and at least half of our military budget.
> >>
> >> Good point.
> >>
> >> The Commerce Department actually had the nerve to propose a special
> >> tax on hybrids because they might cause a drop in tax revenues for
> >> road maintenance.
> >
> > It's coming. There will be a tax on energy conserving vehicles.
> >
> > We cannot allow the dissipation of fuel tax money due to better fuel
> > economy vehicles, therefore we must tax them more.
> > --
> > "[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system."
> >
> > -- Vice President Al Gore
--
"[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system."
-- Vice President Al Gore
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
> That can be easily accomplished, elect more democrats, they are very
> proficient at figuring ways to increase taxes. Currently the federal and
> state governments ALL make more per gallon on gasoline than do the oil
> companies or the retailers. The federal tax is .185c per gallon and the
> average state tax is .28c a gallon. Some states like California also add
> their sales tax to gasoline in addition to the motor fuel tax. Some states
> add to your cost of food by taxing fuels used in farming. Search the
> Congressional Record and you will see the recent investigation of the oil
> industry, in by the House Energy Committee, showed the oil companies
> averaged around 15c a gallon and retailers .05c
>
> mike hunt
Exactly Mike. IF the dimmies get in control they will tax the feel good
crowd while giving them high honors for conserving, also a little pat on
the rump, LOL.
For me increased gas prices don't have much of an impact because I don't
drive that much any more. I either walk or ride a bike for short trips,
it's much more healthy anyway. BTW, if the socialists do gain control,
we'll have absolutely nothing to worry about. They will build huge
amounts of condominiums and force those of us who have our own home and
property out and into condos. This, the socialists say will be more
efficient and tax friendly, for them. LOL.
>
>
> "The BEnevolent dbu" <Relaxand@smeltherose.comm> wrote in message
> news:Relaxand-B60771.16340321042006@news-rdr-03.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > In article <moci42lra55nf3tvkls793obmkj42b6ccr@4ax.com>,
> > Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 12:56:09 -0500, "DH" <dh@stargate.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Tom The Great" <Post@here.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:s83i42tlgvuba7aeq8aglq8kfg1qfjd04r@4ax.com.. .
> >> >> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 10:42:31 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
> >> >> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >That may well be if the price of crude get high enough to make the
> >> >process
> >> >> >competitive. Consumers are not going to buy higher cost alternative
> >> >fuels
> >> >> >just to save the planet. they will only do so when they can save
> >> >> >money.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >mike hunt
> >> >>
> >> >> Very true mike, that is why governments artificially inflate costs
> >> >> through taxation and regulation, to force us to either reduce, or use
> >> >> other high cost solutions.
> >> >>
> >> >> Example: High federal and state taxes on gasoline, that contribute
> >> >> zero to the finished product. Forcing us to buy smaller cars, or pay
> >> >> higher taxes.
> >> >>
> >> >> later,
> >> >>
> >> >> tom @ www.IRantAndRave.com
> >> >
> >> >What high federal and state taxes on gasoline are those? Gas taxes
> >> >don't
> >> >even cover the cost of the highway system.
> >> >
> >> >If gasoline was paying its way, the taxes on it would cover the highway
> >> >system and at least half of our military budget.
> >>
> >> Good point.
> >>
> >> The Commerce Department actually had the nerve to propose a special
> >> tax on hybrids because they might cause a drop in tax revenues for
> >> road maintenance.
> >
> > It's coming. There will be a tax on energy conserving vehicles.
> >
> > We cannot allow the dissipation of fuel tax money due to better fuel
> > economy vehicles, therefore we must tax them more.
> > --
> > "[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system."
> >
> > -- Vice President Al Gore
--
"[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system."
-- Vice President Al Gore
#272
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"st-bum" <kennykabuki@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1145643457.543152.225580@i39g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com:
> Oil is $75 a barrel. A barrel is 42 gallons. So that's about $2 per
> gallon for raw oil. And it takes 4 gallons to make a gallon of
> gasoline.
>
> So gas is $8 a gallon?
>
>
I believe it takes FIVE gal.of crude to make one gal of gasoline.
The yield from one bbl of crude is 20%,or 1/5 of a bbl.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
news:1145643457.543152.225580@i39g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com:
> Oil is $75 a barrel. A barrel is 42 gallons. So that's about $2 per
> gallon for raw oil. And it takes 4 gallons to make a gallon of
> gasoline.
>
> So gas is $8 a gallon?
>
>
I believe it takes FIVE gal.of crude to make one gal of gasoline.
The yield from one bbl of crude is 20%,or 1/5 of a bbl.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
#273
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"st-bum" <kennykabuki@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1145643457.543152.225580@i39g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com:
> Oil is $75 a barrel. A barrel is 42 gallons. So that's about $2 per
> gallon for raw oil. And it takes 4 gallons to make a gallon of
> gasoline.
>
> So gas is $8 a gallon?
>
>
I believe it takes FIVE gal.of crude to make one gal of gasoline.
The yield from one bbl of crude is 20%,or 1/5 of a bbl.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
news:1145643457.543152.225580@i39g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com:
> Oil is $75 a barrel. A barrel is 42 gallons. So that's about $2 per
> gallon for raw oil. And it takes 4 gallons to make a gallon of
> gasoline.
>
> So gas is $8 a gallon?
>
>
I believe it takes FIVE gal.of crude to make one gal of gasoline.
The yield from one bbl of crude is 20%,or 1/5 of a bbl.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
#274
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"st-bum" <kennykabuki@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1145643457.543152.225580@i39g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com:
> Oil is $75 a barrel. A barrel is 42 gallons. So that's about $2 per
> gallon for raw oil. And it takes 4 gallons to make a gallon of
> gasoline.
>
> So gas is $8 a gallon?
>
>
I believe it takes FIVE gal.of crude to make one gal of gasoline.
The yield from one bbl of crude is 20%,or 1/5 of a bbl.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
news:1145643457.543152.225580@i39g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com:
> Oil is $75 a barrel. A barrel is 42 gallons. So that's about $2 per
> gallon for raw oil. And it takes 4 gallons to make a gallon of
> gasoline.
>
> So gas is $8 a gallon?
>
>
I believe it takes FIVE gal.of crude to make one gal of gasoline.
The yield from one bbl of crude is 20%,or 1/5 of a bbl.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
#275
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:4LqdnQTHhLeOa9XZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>I guess we can assume you did not find a source to support you contention?
It is your contention that needs supporting. Yet you fail to do so.
Jeff
> mike hunt
>
>
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7CY1g.6575$Es3.2294@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>
>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>> news:sDydnYSWAdwOKdrZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>> I'm sorry that logic escapes you but if you really want to know, you are
>>> free to do your own search to find what I found.
>>
>> In other words, you are unwilling or unable to back your words.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>> mike hunt
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:T7O1g.6371$Es3.782@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:qxSdnSZaXJJwONrZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>> Think about it. If one can not pump any more gasoline through the
>>>>> distribution system because the demand is cut in half, one does not
>>>>> have any tanks left to store the gasoline, that comes out of a barrel
>>>>> of oil before one get to the really profitable carbon products, what
>>>>> do you think they will have to do with the gasoline?
>>>>
>>>> I didn't ask you to think about it. I asked for evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>>>> mike hunt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4yC1g.9166$i41.2725@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> newsSadnXMgH7CpW9vZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>> That is a good idea, the only problem is it will not solve the
>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>> It will reduce the INCREASE in the amount of oil we import but not
>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>> need for the fast amounts of crude we use to fuel the various
>>>>>>> economies of
>>>>>>> the world. Gasoline is only a small part of why we need to import
>>>>>>> crude.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If every
>>>>>>> vehicle in the US miraculously got twice as many miles per gallon
>>>>>>> some day
>>>>>>> we would still need crude for it carbon stocks and the excess
>>>>>>> gasoline
>>>>>>> would simply be burned off at the refineries, as it was before it
>>>>>>> became a
>>>>>>> motor fuel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please give us evidence that excess gasoline would just be burned
>>>>>> off.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I mean, before it became a motor fuel? That was when? In 1896?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
#276
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:4LqdnQTHhLeOa9XZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>I guess we can assume you did not find a source to support you contention?
It is your contention that needs supporting. Yet you fail to do so.
Jeff
> mike hunt
>
>
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7CY1g.6575$Es3.2294@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>
>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>> news:sDydnYSWAdwOKdrZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>> I'm sorry that logic escapes you but if you really want to know, you are
>>> free to do your own search to find what I found.
>>
>> In other words, you are unwilling or unable to back your words.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>> mike hunt
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:T7O1g.6371$Es3.782@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:qxSdnSZaXJJwONrZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>> Think about it. If one can not pump any more gasoline through the
>>>>> distribution system because the demand is cut in half, one does not
>>>>> have any tanks left to store the gasoline, that comes out of a barrel
>>>>> of oil before one get to the really profitable carbon products, what
>>>>> do you think they will have to do with the gasoline?
>>>>
>>>> I didn't ask you to think about it. I asked for evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>>>> mike hunt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4yC1g.9166$i41.2725@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> newsSadnXMgH7CpW9vZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>> That is a good idea, the only problem is it will not solve the
>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>> It will reduce the INCREASE in the amount of oil we import but not
>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>> need for the fast amounts of crude we use to fuel the various
>>>>>>> economies of
>>>>>>> the world. Gasoline is only a small part of why we need to import
>>>>>>> crude.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If every
>>>>>>> vehicle in the US miraculously got twice as many miles per gallon
>>>>>>> some day
>>>>>>> we would still need crude for it carbon stocks and the excess
>>>>>>> gasoline
>>>>>>> would simply be burned off at the refineries, as it was before it
>>>>>>> became a
>>>>>>> motor fuel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please give us evidence that excess gasoline would just be burned
>>>>>> off.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I mean, before it became a motor fuel? That was when? In 1896?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
#277
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:4LqdnQTHhLeOa9XZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>I guess we can assume you did not find a source to support you contention?
It is your contention that needs supporting. Yet you fail to do so.
Jeff
> mike hunt
>
>
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7CY1g.6575$Es3.2294@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>
>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>> news:sDydnYSWAdwOKdrZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>> I'm sorry that logic escapes you but if you really want to know, you are
>>> free to do your own search to find what I found.
>>
>> In other words, you are unwilling or unable to back your words.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>> mike hunt
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:T7O1g.6371$Es3.782@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:qxSdnSZaXJJwONrZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>> Think about it. If one can not pump any more gasoline through the
>>>>> distribution system because the demand is cut in half, one does not
>>>>> have any tanks left to store the gasoline, that comes out of a barrel
>>>>> of oil before one get to the really profitable carbon products, what
>>>>> do you think they will have to do with the gasoline?
>>>>
>>>> I didn't ask you to think about it. I asked for evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>>>> mike hunt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4yC1g.9166$i41.2725@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> newsSadnXMgH7CpW9vZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>> That is a good idea, the only problem is it will not solve the
>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>> It will reduce the INCREASE in the amount of oil we import but not
>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>> need for the fast amounts of crude we use to fuel the various
>>>>>>> economies of
>>>>>>> the world. Gasoline is only a small part of why we need to import
>>>>>>> crude.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If every
>>>>>>> vehicle in the US miraculously got twice as many miles per gallon
>>>>>>> some day
>>>>>>> we would still need crude for it carbon stocks and the excess
>>>>>>> gasoline
>>>>>>> would simply be burned off at the refineries, as it was before it
>>>>>>> became a
>>>>>>> motor fuel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please give us evidence that excess gasoline would just be burned
>>>>>> off.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I mean, before it became a motor fuel? That was when? In 1896?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
#278
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
You are the one who has a problem with what I posted and you have yet to
post any source that leads you to believe what I posted was not correct. I
have not said you are wrong, I said I'm willing to look at where you got
your information, I'm still waiting for you to show me were my source was
wrong. One can only assume that apparently you are not able to do so
mike hunt
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v3g2g.7015$Es3.386@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:4LqdnQTHhLeOa9XZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>I guess we can assume you did not find a source to support you contention?
>
> It is your contention that needs supporting. Yet you fail to do so.
>
> Jeff
>
>> mike hunt
>>
>>
>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7CY1g.6575$Es3.2294@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>> news:sDydnYSWAdwOKdrZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>> I'm sorry that logic escapes you but if you really want to know, you
>>>> are free to do your own search to find what I found.
>>>
>>> In other words, you are unwilling or unable to back your words.
post any source that leads you to believe what I posted was not correct. I
have not said you are wrong, I said I'm willing to look at where you got
your information, I'm still waiting for you to show me were my source was
wrong. One can only assume that apparently you are not able to do so
mike hunt
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v3g2g.7015$Es3.386@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:4LqdnQTHhLeOa9XZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>I guess we can assume you did not find a source to support you contention?
>
> It is your contention that needs supporting. Yet you fail to do so.
>
> Jeff
>
>> mike hunt
>>
>>
>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7CY1g.6575$Es3.2294@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>> news:sDydnYSWAdwOKdrZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>> I'm sorry that logic escapes you but if you really want to know, you
>>>> are free to do your own search to find what I found.
>>>
>>> In other words, you are unwilling or unable to back your words.
#279
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
You are the one who has a problem with what I posted and you have yet to
post any source that leads you to believe what I posted was not correct. I
have not said you are wrong, I said I'm willing to look at where you got
your information, I'm still waiting for you to show me were my source was
wrong. One can only assume that apparently you are not able to do so
mike hunt
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v3g2g.7015$Es3.386@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:4LqdnQTHhLeOa9XZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>I guess we can assume you did not find a source to support you contention?
>
> It is your contention that needs supporting. Yet you fail to do so.
>
> Jeff
>
>> mike hunt
>>
>>
>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7CY1g.6575$Es3.2294@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>> news:sDydnYSWAdwOKdrZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>> I'm sorry that logic escapes you but if you really want to know, you
>>>> are free to do your own search to find what I found.
>>>
>>> In other words, you are unwilling or unable to back your words.
post any source that leads you to believe what I posted was not correct. I
have not said you are wrong, I said I'm willing to look at where you got
your information, I'm still waiting for you to show me were my source was
wrong. One can only assume that apparently you are not able to do so
mike hunt
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v3g2g.7015$Es3.386@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:4LqdnQTHhLeOa9XZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>I guess we can assume you did not find a source to support you contention?
>
> It is your contention that needs supporting. Yet you fail to do so.
>
> Jeff
>
>> mike hunt
>>
>>
>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7CY1g.6575$Es3.2294@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>> news:sDydnYSWAdwOKdrZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>> I'm sorry that logic escapes you but if you really want to know, you
>>>> are free to do your own search to find what I found.
>>>
>>> In other words, you are unwilling or unable to back your words.
#280
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
You are the one who has a problem with what I posted and you have yet to
post any source that leads you to believe what I posted was not correct. I
have not said you are wrong, I said I'm willing to look at where you got
your information, I'm still waiting for you to show me were my source was
wrong. One can only assume that apparently you are not able to do so
mike hunt
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v3g2g.7015$Es3.386@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:4LqdnQTHhLeOa9XZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>I guess we can assume you did not find a source to support you contention?
>
> It is your contention that needs supporting. Yet you fail to do so.
>
> Jeff
>
>> mike hunt
>>
>>
>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7CY1g.6575$Es3.2294@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>> news:sDydnYSWAdwOKdrZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>> I'm sorry that logic escapes you but if you really want to know, you
>>>> are free to do your own search to find what I found.
>>>
>>> In other words, you are unwilling or unable to back your words.
post any source that leads you to believe what I posted was not correct. I
have not said you are wrong, I said I'm willing to look at where you got
your information, I'm still waiting for you to show me were my source was
wrong. One can only assume that apparently you are not able to do so
mike hunt
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v3g2g.7015$Es3.386@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:4LqdnQTHhLeOa9XZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>I guess we can assume you did not find a source to support you contention?
>
> It is your contention that needs supporting. Yet you fail to do so.
>
> Jeff
>
>> mike hunt
>>
>>
>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7CY1g.6575$Es3.2294@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>> news:sDydnYSWAdwOKdrZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>> I'm sorry that logic escapes you but if you really want to know, you
>>>> are free to do your own search to find what I found.
>>>
>>> In other words, you are unwilling or unable to back your words.
#281
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
Will you two read this, it was posted the toher day but you are to busy
yelling at each other...
This should help....
The United States and Russia, along with the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC), accounted for 61 percent of the total crude
oil produced in the world in 2004. The United States accounted for 7.4
percent of the world's total 2004 crude oil production, and Russia 12
percent. Because uses for crude oil in its natural state are limited,
almost all crude oil is processed into finished petroleum products at a
refinery. The refining process usually involves (1) distillation, or
separation of the hydrocarbons that make up crude oil so that the
heavier products, such as asphalt, are separated from the lighter
products, like kerosene; (2) conversion, or cracking of the molecules
to allow the refiner to squeeze a higher percentage of light products,
such as gasoline, from each barrel of oil; and (3) treatment, or
enhancement of the quality of the product which could entail removing
sulfur from such fuels as kerosene, gasoline, and heating oils. The
addition of blending components to gasoline is also a part of this
process.
Crude oil is measured in barrels. A barrel of 42-U.S. gallons of crude
oil yields slightly more than 44 gallons of petroleum products. This
"process gain" of volume is due to a reduction in the density during
the refining process. In 2004, one barrel of crude oil, when refined,
yielded 19.7 gallons of finished motor gasoline, as well as smaller
quantities of many other petroleum products
Gerald
yelling at each other...
This should help....
The United States and Russia, along with the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC), accounted for 61 percent of the total crude
oil produced in the world in 2004. The United States accounted for 7.4
percent of the world's total 2004 crude oil production, and Russia 12
percent. Because uses for crude oil in its natural state are limited,
almost all crude oil is processed into finished petroleum products at a
refinery. The refining process usually involves (1) distillation, or
separation of the hydrocarbons that make up crude oil so that the
heavier products, such as asphalt, are separated from the lighter
products, like kerosene; (2) conversion, or cracking of the molecules
to allow the refiner to squeeze a higher percentage of light products,
such as gasoline, from each barrel of oil; and (3) treatment, or
enhancement of the quality of the product which could entail removing
sulfur from such fuels as kerosene, gasoline, and heating oils. The
addition of blending components to gasoline is also a part of this
process.
Crude oil is measured in barrels. A barrel of 42-U.S. gallons of crude
oil yields slightly more than 44 gallons of petroleum products. This
"process gain" of volume is due to a reduction in the density during
the refining process. In 2004, one barrel of crude oil, when refined,
yielded 19.7 gallons of finished motor gasoline, as well as smaller
quantities of many other petroleum products
Gerald
#282
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
Will you two read this, it was posted the toher day but you are to busy
yelling at each other...
This should help....
The United States and Russia, along with the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC), accounted for 61 percent of the total crude
oil produced in the world in 2004. The United States accounted for 7.4
percent of the world's total 2004 crude oil production, and Russia 12
percent. Because uses for crude oil in its natural state are limited,
almost all crude oil is processed into finished petroleum products at a
refinery. The refining process usually involves (1) distillation, or
separation of the hydrocarbons that make up crude oil so that the
heavier products, such as asphalt, are separated from the lighter
products, like kerosene; (2) conversion, or cracking of the molecules
to allow the refiner to squeeze a higher percentage of light products,
such as gasoline, from each barrel of oil; and (3) treatment, or
enhancement of the quality of the product which could entail removing
sulfur from such fuels as kerosene, gasoline, and heating oils. The
addition of blending components to gasoline is also a part of this
process.
Crude oil is measured in barrels. A barrel of 42-U.S. gallons of crude
oil yields slightly more than 44 gallons of petroleum products. This
"process gain" of volume is due to a reduction in the density during
the refining process. In 2004, one barrel of crude oil, when refined,
yielded 19.7 gallons of finished motor gasoline, as well as smaller
quantities of many other petroleum products
Gerald
yelling at each other...
This should help....
The United States and Russia, along with the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC), accounted for 61 percent of the total crude
oil produced in the world in 2004. The United States accounted for 7.4
percent of the world's total 2004 crude oil production, and Russia 12
percent. Because uses for crude oil in its natural state are limited,
almost all crude oil is processed into finished petroleum products at a
refinery. The refining process usually involves (1) distillation, or
separation of the hydrocarbons that make up crude oil so that the
heavier products, such as asphalt, are separated from the lighter
products, like kerosene; (2) conversion, or cracking of the molecules
to allow the refiner to squeeze a higher percentage of light products,
such as gasoline, from each barrel of oil; and (3) treatment, or
enhancement of the quality of the product which could entail removing
sulfur from such fuels as kerosene, gasoline, and heating oils. The
addition of blending components to gasoline is also a part of this
process.
Crude oil is measured in barrels. A barrel of 42-U.S. gallons of crude
oil yields slightly more than 44 gallons of petroleum products. This
"process gain" of volume is due to a reduction in the density during
the refining process. In 2004, one barrel of crude oil, when refined,
yielded 19.7 gallons of finished motor gasoline, as well as smaller
quantities of many other petroleum products
Gerald
#283
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
Will you two read this, it was posted the toher day but you are to busy
yelling at each other...
This should help....
The United States and Russia, along with the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC), accounted for 61 percent of the total crude
oil produced in the world in 2004. The United States accounted for 7.4
percent of the world's total 2004 crude oil production, and Russia 12
percent. Because uses for crude oil in its natural state are limited,
almost all crude oil is processed into finished petroleum products at a
refinery. The refining process usually involves (1) distillation, or
separation of the hydrocarbons that make up crude oil so that the
heavier products, such as asphalt, are separated from the lighter
products, like kerosene; (2) conversion, or cracking of the molecules
to allow the refiner to squeeze a higher percentage of light products,
such as gasoline, from each barrel of oil; and (3) treatment, or
enhancement of the quality of the product which could entail removing
sulfur from such fuels as kerosene, gasoline, and heating oils. The
addition of blending components to gasoline is also a part of this
process.
Crude oil is measured in barrels. A barrel of 42-U.S. gallons of crude
oil yields slightly more than 44 gallons of petroleum products. This
"process gain" of volume is due to a reduction in the density during
the refining process. In 2004, one barrel of crude oil, when refined,
yielded 19.7 gallons of finished motor gasoline, as well as smaller
quantities of many other petroleum products
Gerald
yelling at each other...
This should help....
The United States and Russia, along with the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC), accounted for 61 percent of the total crude
oil produced in the world in 2004. The United States accounted for 7.4
percent of the world's total 2004 crude oil production, and Russia 12
percent. Because uses for crude oil in its natural state are limited,
almost all crude oil is processed into finished petroleum products at a
refinery. The refining process usually involves (1) distillation, or
separation of the hydrocarbons that make up crude oil so that the
heavier products, such as asphalt, are separated from the lighter
products, like kerosene; (2) conversion, or cracking of the molecules
to allow the refiner to squeeze a higher percentage of light products,
such as gasoline, from each barrel of oil; and (3) treatment, or
enhancement of the quality of the product which could entail removing
sulfur from such fuels as kerosene, gasoline, and heating oils. The
addition of blending components to gasoline is also a part of this
process.
Crude oil is measured in barrels. A barrel of 42-U.S. gallons of crude
oil yields slightly more than 44 gallons of petroleum products. This
"process gain" of volume is due to a reduction in the density during
the refining process. In 2004, one barrel of crude oil, when refined,
yielded 19.7 gallons of finished motor gasoline, as well as smaller
quantities of many other petroleum products
Gerald
#284
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
(top posting fixed)
>
> "st-bum" <kennykabuki@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1145647051.102311.62260@g10g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> > Most plants have complexity ratings. They can vary what they get out.
> > The greater profit isn't necessarily in teh carbon base. So if the
> > price of gas were cut they'd simply make less of it. They wouldn't
> > "burn it off". You just can't be that stupid.
> >
>
Mike Hunter <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:m9ycnY3jDKOSwNTZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> I'll bet you are not a chemist but if you can figure out way to refine crude
> to get to the carbon stock, without producing gasoline or other volatiles,
> I'm sure the oil companies will pay you an awful lot of money to know how
> you could do it. LOL
>
> mike hunt
>
>
No, Mike. True, you can't "refine" it directly, but they already know how to
make what they need from the refined fractions. Your failure to acknowledge that
makes you either extremely ignorant, or a troll.
>
> "st-bum" <kennykabuki@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1145647051.102311.62260@g10g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> > Most plants have complexity ratings. They can vary what they get out.
> > The greater profit isn't necessarily in teh carbon base. So if the
> > price of gas were cut they'd simply make less of it. They wouldn't
> > "burn it off". You just can't be that stupid.
> >
>
Mike Hunter <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:m9ycnY3jDKOSwNTZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> I'll bet you are not a chemist but if you can figure out way to refine crude
> to get to the carbon stock, without producing gasoline or other volatiles,
> I'm sure the oil companies will pay you an awful lot of money to know how
> you could do it. LOL
>
> mike hunt
>
>
No, Mike. True, you can't "refine" it directly, but they already know how to
make what they need from the refined fractions. Your failure to acknowledge that
makes you either extremely ignorant, or a troll.
#285
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
(top posting fixed)
>
> "st-bum" <kennykabuki@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1145647051.102311.62260@g10g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> > Most plants have complexity ratings. They can vary what they get out.
> > The greater profit isn't necessarily in teh carbon base. So if the
> > price of gas were cut they'd simply make less of it. They wouldn't
> > "burn it off". You just can't be that stupid.
> >
>
Mike Hunter <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:m9ycnY3jDKOSwNTZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> I'll bet you are not a chemist but if you can figure out way to refine crude
> to get to the carbon stock, without producing gasoline or other volatiles,
> I'm sure the oil companies will pay you an awful lot of money to know how
> you could do it. LOL
>
> mike hunt
>
>
No, Mike. True, you can't "refine" it directly, but they already know how to
make what they need from the refined fractions. Your failure to acknowledge that
makes you either extremely ignorant, or a troll.
>
> "st-bum" <kennykabuki@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1145647051.102311.62260@g10g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> > Most plants have complexity ratings. They can vary what they get out.
> > The greater profit isn't necessarily in teh carbon base. So if the
> > price of gas were cut they'd simply make less of it. They wouldn't
> > "burn it off". You just can't be that stupid.
> >
>
Mike Hunter <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:m9ycnY3jDKOSwNTZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> I'll bet you are not a chemist but if you can figure out way to refine crude
> to get to the carbon stock, without producing gasoline or other volatiles,
> I'm sure the oil companies will pay you an awful lot of money to know how
> you could do it. LOL
>
> mike hunt
>
>
No, Mike. True, you can't "refine" it directly, but they already know how to
make what they need from the refined fractions. Your failure to acknowledge that
makes you either extremely ignorant, or a troll.