• 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?

Ethanol

The standard line from the petroleum industry is that capturing gas that is currently flared at the wellhead, and transporting it to market, is not economically viable at today’s NG prices. Mandating by regulation the capture of that gas introduces costs that are sure to be passed on to the consumer, either at the (NG) fuel pump or through the PUCs in the states in their regulation of NG rates for home heating. Costs of conforming to environmental and other regulations are universally recognized as inputs in rate determination. Or, the capturing of gas that is now being flared could be subsidized, which means finding a funding source for that subsidy, and I’d bet that source would be more likely to come from a surcharge on NG than from other general revenue sources. Bottom line is that if we want to minimize or stop flaring someone will have to pay the bill, and that’s probably going to be the NG consumer regardless of the use to which they are putting the fuel.

Best,
DeVern

Well, when the wetter NG (usable for petrochemicals and plastics) was discovered in the Dakota's, the NG activity in the Marcellus shale rapidly dropped and the associated enginnering firms vacated town. Even some of the pipeline projects to east coast export terminals have been dropped.

When the price of your product experiences a 75% drop, you either need a new product or really cheap labor.

NG Commodity Prices.png
 
Well, when the wetter NG (usable for petrochemicals and plastics) was discovered in the Dakota's, the NG activity in the Marcellus shale rapidly dropped and the associated enginnering firms vacated town. Even some of the pipeline projects to east coast export terminals have been dropped.

When the price of your product experiences a 75% drop, you either need a new product or really cheap labor.

View attachment 80414

Kind of looks like the corn market. Interesting. Pick you poison wisely.
 
Back in '81 - '83 I was a Middle East Oilman. I was an engineer in Saudi Arabia, in ARAMCO's Roads & Wellsites Department. My work location was Udhailiyah which was towards the northern end of the Ghawar, the world's largest onshore oilfield. When I got there, all the natural gas from the Ghawar was routed to the nearby Uthmaniyah Gas Plant, which was under construction. It featured probably the world's largest flare, hundreds of feet high. Despite being five or more miles away, the light from that flare lit up the bedroom wall in my trailer-style housing. While I was there, the gas plant was finished and began operating. The "amine plant" part of it scrubbed the hydrogen sulfide out of the gas and in a fairly short time there was literally a mountain of sulfur next to that plant.

It would be good to have as much gas processed rather than flared off.

Harry
 
Here in the Permian Basin they drill both for oil and for gas. At the oil wells they flare off the gas in huge quantities because capturing it and piping it is too much expense and bother since they are after the oil. Use Google Maps and look around Pecos or Odessa, Texas. The number of and spacing of the wells is astounding.

The Permian Highway Pipeline, currently grinding through our county five miles from us, is being completed in spite of economics currently. Kinder Morgan is the principle user but many investors
It will deliver NG towards the Gulf Coast facilities for processing and shipping.

4EAC70DD-D649-4D8E-AE0E-C36CD0741CD1.jpeg



https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/...ay-gas-pipe-in-service-date-blames-permitting
 
Thought I'd throw in my 2 cents. Just got back from a 2-day, 1300km trip. Every fill-up, I alternated between Shell 91 (no ethanol in Canada) and Chevron 91 (10% ethanol).

I noticed no change in my gas mileage. I know - shocking!

As always, YMMV.
 
Thought I'd throw in my 2 cents. Just got back from a 2-day, 1300km trip. Every fill-up, I alternated between Shell 91 (no ethanol in Canada) and Chevron 91 (10% ethanol).

I noticed no change in my gas mileage. I know - shocking!

As always, YMMV.

Accurately capturing the 3.5% difference in mileage on public roads of varying surface finish, condition/location specific speeds and uncontrollable weather conditions, would be hard.
 
Thought I'd throw in my 2 cents. Just got back from a 2-day, 1300km trip. Every fill-up, I alternated between Shell 91 (no ethanol in Canada) and Chevron 91 (10% ethanol).

I noticed no change in my gas mileage. I know - shocking!

As always, YMMV.

Trip through BC and YT two years ago up the Alcan ] I was making 43-44mpg on US gas [ premium 10% ehtanol ]. On the 3rd fill up [ two tanks using Canadian gas [ premium ] I was down to 36-37mpg. I wasn't impressed with the Canadian's gas performance [ though the 1200GS seemed to run just as well on it ].

Just the reverse once I got two tanks of US gas back through the bike, back to 43-44mpg.
 
Trip through BC and YT two years ago up the Alcan ] I was making 43-44mpg on US gas [ premium 10% ehtanol ]. On the 3rd fill up [ two tanks using Canadian gas [ premium ] I was down to 36-37mpg. I wasn't impressed with the Canadian's gas performance [ though the 1200GS seemed to run just as well on it ].

Just the reverse once I got two tanks of US gas back through the bike, back to 43-44mpg.

We've made over a dozen trips up and down the ALCAN/Cassiar and ride in Canada often..... back when we could. Our experience is just the opposite of yours; we always get better mileage using Canadian gas.
 
Trip through BC and YT two years ago up the Alcan ] I was making 43-44mpg on US gas [ premium 10% ehtanol ]. On the 3rd fill up [ two tanks using Canadian gas [ premium ] I was down to 36-37mpg. I wasn't impressed with the Canadian's gas performance [ though the 1200GS seemed to run just as well on it ].

Just the reverse once I got two tanks of US gas back through the bike, back to 43-44mpg.

We only sell the good stuff to people we like. Apparently AKBeemer qualifies. :laugh
 
We only sell the good stuff to people we like. Apparently AKBeemer qualifies. :laugh

No idea why I got less than my normal 43-44 on Canadian gas, but it was glaringly obvious after the second fill up. Bike ran fine even when I had no choice but to use regular at those one pump mom and pops along the way.
 
Projections are just (hopefully) educated guesses, and if there were even just about 50% accurate we could all get rich in the stock market. :brow I found the apparent discrepancy between projected fuel mileage loss using 10% ethanol blend vs. the antidotal losses some people have reported very interesting.

I have been using a product called StarTron which is an enzyme-based fuel treatment which claims to counteract the effects of ethanol, and have seen about a 10% increase in mileage in my two K75s. Plus, they run as if they have more power. I don't see quite the same benefits in my K1200RS.

Interesting - I wonder how an enzyme can increase gas mileage without adding some BTUs to the tank?

Bob is the Oil Guy Startron Thread

And then you have real Bull Puckey from those most interested Ethanol Facts for Startron Delusions - By the "SD Corn Producers"/
 
Last edited:
Interesting - I wonder how an enzyme can increase gas mileage without adding some BTUs to the tank?

BTUs are just part of the equation. Combustion efficiency is another part. If our engines operated at 100% efficiency then we would see a 3.5% or whatever decrease in mileage based on the BTU content of the fuel. But our engines do not operate that way at all. The same engine varies in its efficiency depending on several environmental variables including altitude, temperature, and humidity. In the real world of less than 100% combustion efficiency mileage changes vary a lot. Most report more like a 6% drop in mileage; a few worse than that and others less than the 3.5% number. My K75s see about a 6% drop. My R1150R was very touchy about its fuel and would see up to a 10% change between E10 fuel and pure gas.

I always remember what my 1980s K75 Haynes Manual said about E10. It said I should avoid the use of gasoline adulterated with ethonol in the fuel.
 
BTUs are just part of the equation. Combustion efficiency is another part. If our engines operated at 100% efficiency then we would see a 3.5% or whatever decrease in mileage based on the BTU content of the fuel. But our engines do not operate that way at all. The same engine varies in its efficiency depending on several environmental variables including altitude, temperature, and humidity. In the real world of less than 100% combustion efficiency mileage changes vary a lot. Most report more like a 6% drop in mileage; a few worse than that and others less than the 3.5% number. My K75s see about a 6% drop. My R1150R was very touchy about its fuel and would see up to a 10% change between E10 fuel and pure gas.

I always remember what my 1980s K75 Haynes Manual said about E10. It said I should avoid the use of gasoline adulterated with ethonol in the fuel.

"Most report more like a 6% drop in mileage; a few worse than that and others less than the 3.5% number."

Sorry, I can't let you make a non-verifiable assertion to claim a 3.5% reduction in input energy results in a 6% reduction of useful work. The E10 fuel has 3.5% less energy and the same uniformity of combustion (AKI) as E0. Any other losses have to be beyond the combustion process.

Raising the question of ambient conditions, suggests E10 combustion was never evaluated in real world conditions. I doubt there's any basis for that asumption. I've searched for technical papers on the subject and can't find any.
 
Maybe a hunnerd years from now textbooks will actually give a scientific analysis of damage done to environment trying to save it. If we can wait that long.

IIRC, CARB is trying to ban gas engines by 2035. Get your Sun powered home generators now. Stop climate change? Rationally, gas powered motorcycles seem of little threat at this time. How can humans stop climate from changing? It’s been changing long before humans got up from all fours to walking. That’s what’s this is all about, no?
 
Maybe a hunnerd years from now textbooks will actually give a scientific analysis of damage done to environment trying to save it. If we can wait that long.

IIRC, CARB is trying to ban gas engines by 2035. Get your Sun powered home generators now. Stop climate change? Rationally, gas powered motorcycles seem of little threat at this time. How can humans stop climate from changing? It’s been changing long before humans got up from all fours to walking. That’s what’s this is all about, no?

I think the topic is ethanol. So, perhaps the textbooks will discuss the economic impact of subsidizing a crop and region to protect political advantage.
 
I think the topic is ethanol. So, perhaps the textbooks will discuss the economic impact of subsidizing a crop and region to protect political advantage.

Maybe the texts will also discuss the sheer stupidity of burning food as a fuel which costs way more in energy and resources (water) to create than it gives in return...
 
Interesting - I wonder how an enzyme can increase gas mileage without adding some BTUs to the tank?

Bob is the Oil Guy Startron Thread

And then you have real Bull Puckey from those most interested Ethanol Facts for Startron Delusions - By the "SD Corn Producers"/

I've always written down my mileage and fuel usage with every fill-up - a habit I learned from my grandfather. So, I can tell the MPG of all my vehicles and with both K75's I documented an increase of 2 to 3 mpg. Now, these bikes have the old LE-Jetronic "flapper box" fuel injection. I have not seen such a dramatic improvements in my bikes with the Motronic, or newer FI systems.

I also like the idea as described in the Bob's The Oil Guy forum link of how Startron can facilitate moving water out of the tank. I just wonder if it still gets trapped in the BMW fuel filters which are famous for no passing water?
 
Maybe the texts will also discuss the sheer stupidity of burning food as a fuel which costs way more in energy and resources (water) to create than it gives in return...

It's the same thing. Tax dollars (direct payments) and market allocations (specified fuel mixtures) to create a market for farmers of a crop that has a stagnate/declining commodity price.
 
Back
Top