• Welcome, Guest! We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMW MOA forum provides. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please click the 'Log in' button above and enter your BMW MOA username and password.

    If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMW MOA offers?

$150 barrel oil

The problem is that for every gallon we don't use, the Chinese will buy it.

That's not really how supply and demand (and market pricing of crude oil) works, but so be it. The Chinese are already buying every barrel they need, want, or want to pay for.

The global energy market is very strong right now and we're competing with every other country for oil resources.

Not really sure what you mean by "global energy market is very strong", but if you mean overall demand is pretty close to overall potential supply, then probably correct. We always compete with every other country for oil resources.

I'm still convinced that we need to radically alter the way we create, manage and distribute energy.

Consider this item written by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., regarding deregulation of electrical power generation. I think we need to move away from powering our society and economy with traditional fossil fuels.

As for RFKJr quote . . . :rolleyes

A trillion dollars and we can wean ourselves off of carbon in 15 years?! And, of course, this will require NO GOVERNMENT SPENDING OR TAX DOLLARS! PUH-LEEZE!

Nice connection to the Iraq war, though. Support RFKJr's green iniatives, and we will be free from threats from the Middle East. Wow, I guess in 15 years will be able to bring all of our troops, ships, planes, and tanks home from that part of the world . . . and just let them fight it out among themselves while we sit over here in our air-conditioned comfort powered by "green energy". :thumb
 
I don't think oil company profits are out of line from a percentage profit perspective. I think they make 7 or 8% (?), which isn't a huge margin. It's just that they do a ton of sales.

In 2007, profits were about 10%, but historically oil industry profits run about 7 to 8%, based on total revenues. Many industries have a MUCH larger profit margin.
 
Speculation is a way of life

OK. If the market is bidding on crude oil just to make money while they do not even need it, something is wrong.

These investors get their information from the American Petroleum Instititute (API)and Government(s) agencies. These bodies get their information from the oil companies. Do you smell something?

This is like Enron reporting what they wanted to do so increase their stock value, not what is open and honest for the stock buyers. Of couse if all of the oil industry says things are tight and prices will rise and they are not breaking ranks, the investment community will eat it up. Thus, the value of their inventory and reserves become very profitable.

Our world is becomming a giant casino. Wealth is not made from producing something, but rather betting on its success or availablity.

What the goverment can do is to not allow a profit on the purchasing of product you are not taking physical delivery of for purposes of actual use. Can you imaging a retirement fund trying to store 20 million barrels.

Begging.jpg
 
That's not really how supply and demand (and market pricing of crude oil) works, but so be it. The Chinese are already buying every barrel they need, want, or want to pay for.



Not really sure what you mean by "global energy market is very strong", but if you mean overall demand is pretty close to overall potential supply, then probably correct. We always compete with every other country for oil resources.



As for RFKJr quote . . . :rolleyes

A trillion dollars and we can wean ourselves off of carbon in 15 years?! And, of course, this will require NO GOVERNMENT SPENDING OR TAX DOLLARS! PUH-LEEZE!

Nice connection to the Iraq war, though. Support RFKJr's green iniatives, and we will be free from threats from the Middle East. Wow, I guess in 15 years will be able to bring all of our troops, ships, planes, and tanks home from that part of the world . . . and just let them fight it out among themselves while we sit over here in our air-conditioned comfort powered by "green energy". :thumb

I think we've spent a bit over $500Billion on Iraq in 5 years. Wouldn't it be wiser to spend that money here, over 15 years, on a program to help us get completely free of entanglements in the mid east?

The larger article that appeared in Vanity Fair a couple months ago included some interesting items. One was that if we took a bit less than 20% of the unusable land in the southwest and installed solar arrays, we'd be able to generate enough electricity to power the entire country, even if every single house had a plug in hybrid. Similarly, some of the states in the midwest are like the Saudi Arabia of wind. They could easily install enough windmills to run the entire country.

The involvement by the government would revolve around installing a DC grid that would transmit energy more efficiently.

Consider what you'd do if you were a farmer with a few hundred acres. You could install power generation turbines over most of it without disturbing the grazing or crop rearing potential of your land. Additionally, you could run your entire farm with the electricity you generated (perhaps not the tractors, but all the facilities and mechanical systems). You'd also be able to sell power back to the grid.

I believe, and DarrylRi can probably correct me, people that generate electricity via local means like solar or wind can't sell more power back to the grid than they consume from the grid. Once the opportunity is there, people will find a way to get income from it, particularly if they can make a lot of money at it.

I think that deregulating our electrical supply system would pay the same kind of benefits deregulating the telephone system has. Cheaper services, lots of innovation and more competition.
 
A related question.

If oil companies are allowed to drill in ANWAR, will the price per barrel be any less than the current market price?

I often see that as a solution to high gas prices, but I'm thinking it wouldn't change the market price at all.

So you folks who are smarter about this, how about an explanation?

I don't think it will make a dent. It won't stop oil speculators, it won't add refinery capacity, and if we started drilling today, it would not be on the market for a good while.

However, it would make a few more oilmen a little richer.

Easy :german
 
I think we've spent a bit over $500Billion on Iraq in 5 years. Wouldn't it be wiser to spend that money here, over 15 years, on a program to help us get completely free of entanglements in the mid east?

At the risk of starting something "political", the answer depends on whether you believe we are ONLY in the Middle East to protect "our" (i.e., the U.S.) crude oil and energy supplies, and for no other reason. If your belief is "yes", then your answer is probably "yes" it would be wiser. If your belief is "no", and that there are other reasons why we are over there, then your answer is probably "no" it would not be wiser.

The larger article that appeared in Vanity Fair a couple months ago included some interesting items. One was that if we took a bit less than 20% of the unusable land in the southwest and installed solar arrays, we'd be able to generate enough electricity to power the entire country, even if every single house had a plug in hybrid. Similarly, some of the states in the midwest are like the Saudi Arabia of wind. They could easily install enough windmills to run the entire country.

Leaving aside the question of "Vanity Fair" being the best primary source for a technical issue such as this (although I understand they have some good pics of Miley Cyrus!), did the article discuss such things as:
1. The COST of covering 20% of the southwest with solar arrays.
2. The relative cost ($/kw-hr) of solar power vs. other sources of electrical power (e.g., nuclear).
3. The public acceptance (including enviros) of covering 20% of the "unusable" land with solar arrays (and what is the definition of "unusable"?). I'd like to see the Environmental Impact Statement for THAT project.
4. People (including Ted Kennedy) seem to object to having big wind turbines near where they live or where they play, and enviros object to bird kills.

The involvement by the government would revolve around installing a DC grid that would transmit energy more efficiently.

A DC grid . . . as in "direct current" . . . to transmit electrical power? Didn't Edison and Westinghouse have that AC-DC battle over a hundred years ago? I thought AC won.

I think that deregulating our electrical supply system would pay the same kind of benefits deregulating the telephone system has. Cheaper services, lots of innovation and more competition.

I don't know enough about the details of electrical power distribution to be sure of the answer, but generally more competition is usually better from a consumer price and service viewpoint.
 
Last edited:
OK. If the market is bidding on crude oil just to make money while they do not even need it, something is wrong.

Why? Is this any different from baseball cards and beanie babies?

These investors get their information from the American Petroleum Instititute (API)and Government(s) agencies. These bodies get their information from the oil companies. Do you smell something?

First, that's not how the commodities markets work. Second, the commodities traders are betting their own or their clients' money, and stand to lose big time if they act on information that turns out to be wrong, so they have a big incentive to check the numbers thoroughly and not to rely on just a couple of sources.

This is like Enron reporting what they wanted to do so increase their stock value, not what is open and honest for the stock buyers. Of couse if all of the oil industry says things are tight and prices will rise and they are not breaking ranks, the investment community will eat it up. Thus, the value of their inventory and reserves become very profitable.

Oh yes, I forgot about the "big oil companies conspiracy". Just note that Enron came crashing down in a fairly short time, and government agencies and law enforcement under both Democrats and Republicans have been looking for oil industry price fixing for decades and have yet to find any.

Our world is becomming a giant casino. Wealth is not made from producing something, but rather betting on its success or availablity.

Well, that's simply incorrect. If the oil companies (both private and government owned) were not actually PRODUCING crude oil and gasoline, there would not be anything to be "betting on".

What the goverment can do is to not allow a profit on the purchasing of product you are not taking physical delivery of for purposes of actual use. Can you imaging a retirement fund trying to store 20 million barrels.

Hmmm . . . from what I understand that is one of the reasons commodities markets originated in the first place . . . to avoid the inefficiencies of entities having to take actual "physical possession" of these bulky commodities. Why do you think this would lower the price of crude oil?
 
BeemerMike said:
1. The COST of covering 20% of the southwest with solar arrays.
I believe KBasa was comparing the cost to the $500B spent on the Iraq war. Our future is mortgaged to that war. Why not mortgage it to something that will give us something to show for it down the road?
2. The relative cost ($/kw-hr) of solar power vs. other sources of electrical power (e.g., nuclear).
The cost of nuclear is infinite, because the US government can't force the storage dump down Nevada's throat. They are being sued by the existing nuclear operators because they promised a place to permanently store the waste in 1998 and haven't delivered. The government is going to lose, and have to pay the operators to maintain lots of little storage dumps wherever there is a nuclear plant operating. The new money that's available from the current administration is useless without a place to put the waste. There's an article about this in last month's SciAm.
3. The public acceptance (including enviros) of covering 20% of the "unusable" land with solar arrays (and what is the definition of "unusable"?). I'd like to see the Environmental Impact Statement for THAT project.
Indeed, that's difficult, but do you really think that nuclear is going to get a warmer welcome? The nice thing about solar and wind is that you can put them up in dribs and drabs, so long as you can hook them up to the grid. There's no waste dumps, no emmissions, and no fuel to transport. The units last a long time with minimal maintenance. And because they can be distributed like that, they don't create single source targets for terrorists to attack.
4. People (including Ted Kennedy) seem to object to having big wind turbines near where they live or where they play, and enviros object to bird kills.
True enough, but I read that Kennedy and his neighbors are losing that fight.

For myself, I think my investment in solar 6.5 years ago, while expensive, is going to prove itself. Electricity costs have gone up here since I installed solar, and I'm on schedule to pay off the cost in about 6 more years. From then on -- and my panels have a 25 year warranty -- it's all free juice.

And this is from a technology that allegedly isn't competitive with coal, oil or nuclear. That may be true in the short run, but not in the long run.

The point is, we have to stop relying on one or two forms of energy, because this has put us over a barrel. Just as monocropping makes agriculture supremely susceptible to disease and pests, so relying on one source of energy makes us hostage to whoever controls that energy. We need to develop a variety of energy sources that we control and that are not going to destroy our environment.
 
America needs to look in the mirror to see why we are in the place we are. The general population of the US are energy PIGS, plain and simple. H2 hummers, excess-cursions and mega SUV's and Vipers to drive to the store for a loaf of bread.

Air conditioning everywhere, Fly at night and the entire east and west coast it lit up like Las Vegas, for what??

Letting domestic Eco-Terrorists destroy continuation of nuclear power. Stupid moves to placate ourselves with Wind, in places it is inefficient, and Ethanol which is energy negative, according to most independent studies.

And how much has our declining $$ added to the cost of oil?? Any body buying with Euro's has not seen the rise we have.

We need to wake up, get energy independent (Nuclear), start using the resources sensibly. We did not learn in the 70's and may not this time either.
 
"Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., BP America Inc. and ConocoPhilips Co. Together the five companies earned $36 billion during the first three months of this year."

Who's the pig?
 
Any body buying with Euro's has not seen the rise we have.

Not so. Last year I paid about Ôé¼1.10/liter in Germany. My friend there tells me to expect Ôé¼1.40+ this year. That's at 27% price hike, the equivalent of going from $3.00/gallon to $3.81/gallon.
 
Not so. Last year I paid about Ôé¼1.10/liter in Germany. My friend there tells me to expect Ôé¼1.40+ this year. That's at 27% price hike, the equivalent of going from $3.00/gallon to $3.81/gallon.

Darryl, I already paid Ôé¼1.53 in Italy last year...mind you that was for Shell V-Power 100. Now you know how I pumped just over $63 into the tank on my GS Adventure.
 
What I fear from all this is the return of the 55MPH national speed limit. That would not be pleasant to deal with again.
 
"Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., BP America Inc. and ConocoPhilips Co. Together the five companies earned $36 billion during the first three months of this year."

Who's the pig?

But all things relative.....
Their profit margin (costs vs revenue) is actually lower than most other businesses. It just sounds like a really big number. When you take into account their other costs it really isn't that big of a profit.

So then, If the oil companies are making an excess profit of 5% and congress wants to take that from them, what's stopping them from going after any other legitimate business owner making 5%?[There's nothing stopping the government from doing that]

Why are we sitting on hundreds of billions of barrels of oil in North Dakota, Montana, and Alaska and not drilling it? [The government won't let us]

Why aren't we drilling for the huge deposits of oil off Florida and California?[The government won't let us]

Why was the Polar Bear ruled as endangered when there are 4 times as many of them as 15 years ago and the Canadians have so many that they are wandering into towns?

If the Polar bear is endangered does that mean the Russian's can't drill for oil because of their polar bears either?

It seems that Washington is the problem and not the oil companies. We could have built lots of refineries, drilled lots of wells, and built lots of nukes.....but Washington won't let us.
 
But all things relative.....Why are we sitting on hundreds of billions of barrels of oil in North Dakota, Montana, and Alaska and not drilling it? [The government won't let us]

Why are we sitting in 6000 pound vehicles to carry a bag of groceries home from the market 2 miles away? :scratch

Yer right... all things relative we hath reaped what we hath sewn. :usa

Although, I have a better idea... Let's just pave the planet and be done with it already...
 
"Why was the Polar Bear ruled as endangered when there are 4 times as many of them as 15 years ago and the Canadians have so many that they are wandering into towns?"

Because the sea ice is melting... But that's a different thread.
 
It is truly amazing how some people just cannot resist injecting their personal political stance into a discussion, even when is it not relevant.

I believe KBasa was comparing the cost to the $500B spent on the Iraq war. Our future is mortgaged to that war. Why not mortgage it to something that will give us something to show for it down the road?

Please read the note again. I wasn't commenting on comparing the cost of the Iraq war to the cost of solarizing the southwest U.S. I was just asking whether the Vanity Fair article got into these sort of "details", i.e., costs, environmental impacts, etc., so I could get a feel whether the article was just a "puff piece", or was it an attempt to write a serious and researched article on the subject.

The cost of nuclear is infinite, because the US government can't force the storage dump down Nevada's throat. They are being sued by the existing nuclear operators because they promised a place to permanently store the waste in 1998 and haven't delivered. The government is going to lose, and have to pay the operators to maintain lots of little storage dumps wherever there is a nuclear plant operating. The new money that's available from the current administration is useless without a place to put the waste. There's an article about this in last month's SciAm.

No doubt that storage of nuclear waste is the big obstacle, but it is more of a political obstacle than a technical obstacle. The total volume of nuclear waste that must be managed each year in the U.S. is relatively small. It can be managed in an environmentally sound manner to be safe. I have a friend from undergraduate school who works at Yucca Mountain, so I have some knowledge and understanding of the technical situation there (we both have Mining Engineering degrees, and he worked for five years before that in Hong Kong doing the blasting and rock mechanics work for the new airport). Political obstacles just need the will to find a solution. They are not an insurmountable obstacle. We'll see what eventually happens.

Indeed, that's difficult, but do you really think that nuclear is going to get a warmer welcome?

The short answer is "yes". You are aready seeing environmentalists who used to fight nuclear power starting to embrace it as part of the solution to what they now see is a more important problem . . . global climate change and greenhouse gases.

The point is, we have to stop relying on one or two forms of energy, because this has put us over a barrel. Just as monocropping makes agriculture supremely susceptible to disease and pests, so relying on one source of energy makes us hostage to whoever controls that energy. We need to develop a variety of energy sources that we control and that are not going to destroy our environment.

We don't rely on one or two forms of energy. Over half of the U.S. electrical supply is generated by coal (of which we have at least 200 years worth), and almost all of the rest is generated by natural gas, hydro, and nuclear, and our cars and trucks and trains and airplanes are powered from crude oil. I think the "green" sources (solar, wind, etc.) currently account for at most a percent or two.

The obstacles in the way of completely, or significantly, converting to "green energy" sources include the fact that they have their own environmental and public acceptance issues, and paying for the what will certainly be enormous conversion costs.
 
Last edited:
Why was the Polar Bear ruled as endangered when there are 4 times as many of them as 15 years ago and the Canadians have so many that they are wandering into towns?

A minor point, but the polar bear was NOT classified as "endangered", it was only classifed as "threatened", which I believe is one step less severe, and does not trigger as many restrictions and protections as "endangered" does.

If the Polar bear is endangered does that mean the Russian's can't drill for oil because of their polar bears either?

No. Russia does not have our Endangered Species Act.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top