I read the March 10 editorial "No Saudi Help: A U.S. Ally Declines to Pressure OPEC on Oil" and just continue to shake my head. The people just don't get it.

The daily output of oil has nothing to do with our gas prices here in the United States. OPEC is correct when it said it is pumping enough for demand. Here in the United States, it is not how much oil comes in, but the capacity we have to refine it into gas, diesel fuel, heating oil, etc.

In the early 1980s there were 300 refineries in the United States; by 2007 that number had been cut in half to 149. So while demand has increased by 45 percent, the refining capacity has decreased, which is driving the price up (elementary supply and demand).

The newest refinery in the United States is 31 years old, having been completed in 1976. The cost of a new refinery is roughly $1 billion, but even with the record profits the oil companies are making, they have no new refineries on the books to be built. Why would they while they are getting rich and can blame it on OPEC? We need to wise up and see who the real terrorists are: big oil.

DAN WOODS
Monroeville

---

Regarding your March 10 editorial "No Saudi Help": Without taking exception to your stated reasons for the Saudi refusal to raise oil extraction, let me offer a related and possibly more fundamental reason: peak oil.

On Jan. 15 on ABC's "Nightline," Terry Moran interviewed President Bush. While discussing how to make the Saudis lower oil prices, Mr. Bush said: "If they don't have a lot of additional oil to put on the market, it is hard to ask somebody to do something they may not be able to do." Mr. Bush was either lying or indulging in an unguarded moment of candor. I think it was candor.

The fact is that the high point in worldwide oil production is May 2005. That's three years with no rise in oil production. Further, the Saudis are increasing domestic consumption and slowly reducing the amount they sell through export.

Mr. Bush indirectly confirmed what many who study peak oil have been speculating for several years: The Saudis cannot increase production due to geological constraint -- peak oil.

DAN BEDNARZ
Edgewood

---

As an avid cyclist since I was 13, I would like to rebut the March 5 letter "Untested Cyclists." I would like to ask the letter writer at what age we should start testing. I take recreational rides around the city with my 10-year-old. Should we require licenses of every 6-year-old who wants to ride a bike?

Silliness aside, I would like to point out that I know of no cyclists (and I know a lot) who do not already have a driver's license. Cyclists are to obey the same rules of the road as others. Most of these people also have a car and, as required by the state, car insurance. If a cyclist rams into your automobile, his or her car insurance is what takes care of this. If the cyclist has no car insurance, your car insurance company is supposed to sue him or her in your stead.

Cyclists are fully aware that they take their lives into their hands every time they hit the road because of impatient and thoughtless drivers. Trust me, we want to hit your car a whole lot less than you care to be hit.

I will be the first to admit there are bad cyclists, but there are just as many bad drivers, and bad pedestrians, as far as that goes. I curse far more jaywalkers while driving than I do cyclists. So, the next time you coast through that stop sign or cross an intersection against the walk sign, you might remember not to throw stones at cyclists.

CHRIS HELBLING
Squirrel Hill

---

How is it that the decisions of Democratic primary voters are being neutralized by the presence of "superdelegates"? These are people who will make a decision, or more than likely have already made a decision, in a highly contested Democratic primary?

Is this just a euphemism for an elite cadre of party hacks, in the best reincarnation of Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall? Are these superdelegates already committed party apparatchiks, ready to cast their ballots in case the registered Democrats in the general population don't realize what is really good for them, and have an opinion different from the party's leaders and the Democratic National Committee machine?

Are these superdelegates a tool to thwart the will of the people, should the people and their leaders disagree? Considering the millions and millions of dollars involved from investors (i.e, contributors), both foreign and domestic, who have a horse in this race, I should think the positions of these "superdelegates" should be investigated, or at least explained.

MICHAEL GUY
Coraopolis

---

The battle between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party nomination illustrates the differences between these two competitors.

To use a sporting analogy, Sen. Obama is the "good guy in the clubhouse" -- popular, personable, represents the team well, looks smart in uniform, always plays by the rules. Think Tom Brady, Sidney Crosby or Jason Bay.

Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, "comes to play" -- tough, relentless and willing to do whatever it takes to win, even if it means stepping all over the rules of sportsmanship. She's the player you want on your team, but hate on the other team. Think Ray Lewis, Joey Porter or legendary Philadelphia Flyer Bobby Clarke.

Camp Hillary asks: Which one of us do you trust at crunch time?

The Pennsylvania primary looms. The Clinton machine is essentially calling Sen. Obama soft. While stumping across the Keystone State, Sen. Obama ought to remember his Chicago roots and play some "smashmouth" politics with Sen. Clinton. He needs to take the battle to Sen. Clinton by reminding voters of the more unsavory nuggets from her past, like Whitewater, for starters. Or renting out the Lincoln bedroom for political favors. The list of potential punches is long, and every jab is fair in the rough-and-tumble game of politics.

Sen. Obama is up against a desperate foe -- one as cunning as the serpent of Eden. Drop the kid gloves, Barack!

DAN SKANTAR
North Fayette

---

The article "US Airways Puts $25 Fee on 2nd Bag" (Feb. 27) shows just how badly a national Passengers' Bill of Rights is needed to address the major concerns of the flying public.

For too long, carriers have denied passengers basic rights and necessities, and it is time for all advocates of fliers' rights to speak with a united voice for comprehensive protection. As delays and airport congestion hit almost record levels in 2007, airlines did little to look out for the well-being of their passengers. Instead of making the experience as comfortable as possible, airline executives saw fit to limit basic necessities like food and water on their airplanes. Now, as the airlines fight legislation that would hold them responsible for stranding passenger in inhumane conditions, they are "nickel and diming" passengers to line their own pockets.

On top of that, David Stempler, a self-proclaimed "voice of air travelers" as president of the Air Travelers Association, has refused to support legislation that would protect passengers. Even in the face of the Department of Transportation and Government Accountability Office finding about the large role the airlines' overscheduling practices have on our nation's atrocious airline delays, Mr. Stempler continually passes the buck from the airlines onto the shoulders of others, sometimes even the passengers he claims to speak for.

It is time that Mr. Stempler support a national, comprehensive Passengers' Bill of Rights law that protects travelers.

KATE HANNI
Executive Director
Coalition for Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights
Napa, Calif.

---

When I was in law school in Baltimore in the early '80s, I learned that adultery was still a crime in Maryland. Not that it was ever prosecuted, mind you. But it served a very valuable purpose for the divorce lawyers of that state. If a wayward spouse was asked in a civil proceeding whether adultery had been committed, the answer was simple: "On advice of counsel, I decline to answer and invoke my constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment to not incriminate myself."

So, too, I would suggest that keeping the laws against prostitution on the books serves a substitute purpose. As Sydney Biddle Barrows puts it in referring to the case of New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, "These people have nothing better to do?" ("Spitzer Case Angers Mayflower Madam," March 11). Republican politicians can breathe easier now that a productive and talented Democrat got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Why does it take the convicted Mayflower Madam to give us the straight talk about hookers and brothels? But, then again, Belle Watling had wisdom for Scarlett O'Hara on what is proper. Miss Melanie knew that.

BOB SHREVE
Point Breeze

---

We welcome your letters. Please include your name, address and phone number, and send to Letters to the Editor, 34 Blvd. of the Allies, Pittsburgh 15222. E-mail letters to letters@post-gazette.com or fax to 412-263-2014. Letters should be 250 words or less, original and exclusive to the Post-Gazette. All letters are subject to editing for length, clarity and accuracy and will be verified before being published.