| Author | Message | ||
     Tedk |
One of the reasons I got in to Buell motorcycles was because they were "American" made and represented this great country. What about putting domestic fuel in that tank, and supporting our troops in the process? Check this site out; www.joinfoil.org It reminds me of the Black Sheep. Happy New Year! | ||
| Road_thing  |
Count me in! Stamp out Big Oil! That'll leave more room for "little oil" guys like me... Seriously, Ted, we in the US are going to have to shift our demand curve dramatically downward if we are to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We import over half of the crude oil consumed in the US, and the proportion is increasing. Domestic oil reserves and production have been declining for the last three decades, and it's not for want of effort or investment in the exploration and development industry--the average reserves per successful well drilled is dropping because the US has been heavily explored for the last century and is now considered a highly mature province. I'm all for alternative energy sources, like alcohol fuels, hydrogen, etc., when/if they can be made practical, safe and cheaper than oil. If that's what FOIL is about, then more power to them. But from my quick read of their site, I came away with the impression that they want to raise money by playing on people's mistrust of politicians, executives and "Big Oil". Quotes: FOIL is a for-profit organization. DO THE MATH If 100 million people use a 20-cent FOIL stamp every day, times 365 days, that's $7 billion a year toward oil independence and Buying Back America. Sounds like scam on top of demagoguery to me. Here's the way the oil business works: The price of crude is set by supply and demand on the world market. With the exception of minor adjustments for BTU content, API gravity, and the costs of transportation from the wellhead to the point of purchase, I get the same price for every barrel of my oil that Exxon gets for theirs. The fact that Exxon is a huge multinational company that's 67.8 bazillion times bigger than my little outfit matters not one iota to the purchasers of the crude. There's no such thing as "domestic fuel" when you're talking about gasoline. I love Buells, America, Mom and apple pie (not necessarily in that order) but no amount of stamps will change the fact that crude oil is a commodity on the world market. Subject to the content and transportation cost adjustments I mentioned earlier, one of my barrels from Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana is worth the same as one of BP's barrels from the North Slope, or one of Exxon's barrels from the North Sea or one of Shell's barrels from the Niger Delta. A barrel is a barrel is a barrel. 42 gallons of black stuff. rt Sorry for the rant. I get irritated when people generalize about "Big Oil" and try to make money off the public's fears and misconceptions. | ||
| Henrik  |
We guarantee 92% of every dollar of profit from the sale of FOIL That sentence alone has me concerned. Who determines how to calculate the "profit"? Having seen so-called charities who end up spending as little as 1% of the $$ donated on the actual charity, I'm always suspicious. Supposedly a 35% operating cost of a charity/collection is considered exceptionally good. Just keep in mind that a lot less than the $1 you donate will make it to where you intend it. How much less is the real question. Henrik | ||
| Slaughter  |
Smells bad. I'll beat their plan - Send me $1 and I guarantee that 50% of the GROSS sales will go to domestic oil, deficit reduction... saving the unborn gay whales, whatever... | ||
| Gschuette  |
Road Thing just stated that the oil reserves have been going down for the past 30 years. Well how are they going to go back up. The Earth is not going to just suddenly start making oil again. We can not replace oil that has been used. | ||
| Mikej  |
"We can not replace oil that has been used." There is some debate on the actual origin of oil. Some believe it is being regenerated constantly. Some believe it is a limited supply. Some believe pumping out oil is like removing air from a balloon and eventually the earth will go flat in places. Some believe the earth is flat now. I just believe it snowed last night and more is on the way today so it will be a few more weeks before I have to worry about putting gas in my bike. YMMV. | ||
| Road_thing |
Gschuette: Sorry, I should have defined my terms. I forgot that my audience doesn't live with this stuff like I do! By "reserves" I meant "proved reserves" which in the industry signifies reserves which have been discovered and are producible with current technology and are economic at current prices. "Proved reserves" increase when new discoveries are made, and they decrease as oil is produced from known fields, so the amount of "proved reserves" we have varies over time. A steady decline in "proved reserves", such as we have experienced in the US of late, signifies that we are producing the oil we know we have faster than we are finding new fields. Now, this could happen if we simply produced our known fields and quit exploring for more which, let me assure you, has not been the case. The US has had a very active domestic exploration industry, with ups and downs, of course, since the early 1970's. We just can't keep up with consumption. Lots of data here: http://hubbert.mines.edu/ This is a website from the Colorado School of Mines, probably the foremost US university in petroleum-related disciplines. The site is named after Dr. M. King Hubbert, who calculated years ago that the world's oil production would peak and then decline as the potential reserves of the planet are converted into "proved reserves" and produced and consumed. rt | ||
| Bomber  |
Road Thing just stated that the oil reserves have been going down for the past 30 years. Well how are they going to go back up. The Earth is not going to just suddenly start making oil again. We can not replace oil that has been used. I took a ride in a buddy's Pontiac a few years ago, under certain conditions, the little computer in the dashboard would report that our range was increasing while we drove -- I looked around, expecting to see dinosaurs rising up out of the earth only to decay into crud before my very eyes -- no such luck, so I can only srmise that this particular car was MAKING gasoline! if we all switch to late 90s GM intermediates, Thang would be out of work before you could say "Teddy Roosevelt!" me, I'llstick to being a user, and keep our Texas brother in shotgun shells, Deisel-rated oil for his hog, and Ethyl for his Buell | ||
| Road_thing |
Mikej: There is some debate on the actual origin of oil. That is an accurate statement. I think I posted on this very subject some time back: http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/4062/61958.html#POST272246 Some believe it is being regenerated constantly. Personally, I think this is true. However, the regeneration occurs at depths which are beyond the reach of current drilling technology, and at rates which are probably insufficient to make a difference to the supply/demand curves even if they were accessible. Some believe it is a limited supply. In a practical sense, I also believe this is true. See above. Some believe pumping out oil is like removing air from a balloon and eventually the earth will go flat in places. True. Well, if not completely "flat", at least the surface will subside measurably. Check out the vicinity of Long Beach CA. Some believe the earth is flat now. Incredibly enough, that is also an accurate statement! I just believe it snowed last night and more is on the way today so it will be a few more weeks before I have to worry about putting gas in my bike. I do not question your belief on this matter! rt | ||
| Tedk |
I would rather see hydrogen/electric/alternative fuels as well, but American-made fuel(grain/bio-diesel) would be better than nothing. Look here; www.evworld.com or www.newdream.org for alternative fuels. I also thought as many of you did that this guy is just trying to make $$$. What my point (that I should have clarified) to this is that of our troops and others being killed in war for oil(IMO), the environment being polluted, car manufacturers and politicians squandering our economy in the name of oil. It is obvious to anyone who has any common sense. There are already more hybrids coming(look at the 05's) as well as "fuel-cell" vehicles in the works. And if FOIL is just trying to make some $$$, so what? Buy a couple of stamps for $5-$15 and help spread the word that you care about saving the lives of troops, the economy, the environment. Decals and stamps are great advertising. There are also many other groups that share similiar opinions besides FOIL, maybe if we all join one or more groups we can change things for the better. Oh and I do think motorcycles are best left run on crude oil, especially V-twins  Disagree with me or FOIL, but please make a difference or just disagree! | ||
| Blake |
I live in Texas, let me assure you that much of America's fuel is American made and even extracted from American geology. If we want to cut back on oil imports the best thing we can do is to cut back on our oil consumption. Do they have a stamp for that? Buells do achieve amazing fuel mileage. That's a good start!  Keep up the enthusiasm on this issue Ted; not sure the FOIL scenario is the way to go, but that shouldn't stop us from continuing to address and call attention to the core issue. | ||
| M1combat  |
Scorched Earth. I say we use all of theirs before we use ours. I don't really care what it costs. | ||
| Country  |
that is a scam. | ||
| Blake |
From the FOIL website... "America's addiction to foreign oil funds terrorism." I agree. Not sure I would call it a "scam"; it definitely is a for profit ad agency business. | ||
| Road_thing |
TedK: I'm not disagreeing with you, we need to reduce our dependence on crude oil (Foreign/domestic makes no difference, it's a commodity in the world market) and hydrogen/electric/alternative fuels and any other American-made fuels (grain/bio-diesel) help to the extent that they displace crude oil in the marketplace. My bitch is with those who demonize the American energy industry to further their own goals. FOIL asks us to buy their stamps, doesn't really say where the money goes, but tells us that the industry which has given the world cheap energy for 100 years is sleazy and greedy. Sorry, I've worked with that bunch for the last thirty years, and I can't swallow that kind of gross generalization. rt (Message edited by road_thing on January 05, 2005) | ||
| Tedk |
I worked in the gas industry for many years and learned about hydrogen. First they wanted to "burn" it in internal combustion engines and now there are hydrogen fuel cells. It looks like the hydrogen may come into its own in 3 decades. Electric cars have been around for 100 years as well but the battery technology is still out of reach. I really like the FOIL decals with Uncle Sam, they remind me of Buell Black Sheep decals. Just wanted people to take more action, let's forget foil and move on to??? AAF - Americans for Alternative Fuel. I just made that up. Anyone have any resources where action is/can be taken to promote alternative fuels? | ||
| Blake |
How about ACE, Americans Conserving Energy? Electric cars run on fossil fuels too. I bet the hydrogen is derived from fossil fuel energy too. It is hard to escape. Fossil fuels are still by far the cheapest source of energy there is. Until that changes, the demand will remain. RT, At what price point does oil start to become non-competitive with alternative fuels? | ||
| Road_thing |
Blake, I don't know. It's probably not a distinct "line in the sand" (to use a Texas analogy), but rather a combination of high and/or steadily increasing price over a relatively long period of time that encourages continuing R&D investment into alternative fuels. The price on alternative fuels (and probably almost any kind of new technology you can name) always seems prohibitive at first, but as the technology moves up the learning curve, the price per unit comes down. If the price of the competing old technology (crude oil, in this case) continues to climb, at some point the curves will cross and the new tech is economically attractive. Remember the first oil crisis, back in '73? It took a while before fuel-efficient cars became widely popular. That's because it didn't make sense to abandon the capital invested in older, gas-guzzling cars until it became apparent that the new price was going to stick. I think that same phenomenon has been going on and will continue, not just in vehicles, but in all capital investment in energy consuming equipment. I think most of the new electric generating capacity being built in the US is designed to run on natural gas, but a large number of plants have the capability to switch to other fuels (coal, fuel oil) if they become cheaper on a per KW output basis. Court could probably shed some light on that subject. rt | ||
| Road_thing |
I wonder if it would be feasible to extract hydrogen from seawater using electricity generated from solar power? I'm envisioning a floating array of solar panels in the equatorial ocean somewhere, breaking H2O down into it's constituent gases and pumping the product into floating tanks. The gases could be lightered to the consuming markets by LNG-type carriers. Anybody know a patent attorney? rt | ||
| Aesquire  |
Sorry, well within state of the art, already been a Popular Mechanics cover, & the eco- freaks won't let you. | ||
| Reepicheep  |
Interesting thought Thing... So is that what we would get when we cross you with Capt. Pete? | ||
| Steveshakeshaft |
An interesting aside from another perspective. The UK, once a world leader in Nuclear Generation Technology has a policy of a "Fossil Fuel Tarrif" which is a subsidy charged on Fossil Fuels used in Electricity Generation to subsidise non-fossil fuel power generation. Since the UK's potential Hydro Electric capacity has been in place for decades, this leaves sources such as wave power, wind power, energy from waste etc... and yes, nuclear power. Since the latter is now a political dead duck, the government is encouraging large installations of wind generators. But guess what? The wind don't blow all the time. And the folks who got nuclear power a bad name and got the nuke projects cancelled are now campaigning heavily against wind farms because of them spoiling the scenery! You just can't win. What is unmistakable though, is that due to the unpredictable nature of wind power, the UK has to have an increasingly high level of "spinning reserve". To you and me, that means (mainly) coal fired power plant fully upto temperature and running without producing a single watt of useful power. Ready to make electricity the second the wind speed falls. In addition, the low load factor of wind generators means that taking into account the pollution caused by their building and construction (not to mention the required fossil fuel spinning reserve and their ultimate scrapping!), it is accepted in many quarters that the pollution caused during the life cycle of a wind generator may be even higher than a coal fired power plant! And Hydrogen? Where does the majority of the world supply come from? You guessed it, fossil fuel. It is mainly made by splitting Natural Gas (Methane, CH4) into Hydrogen (H2) and Carbon Monoxide (CO) in reformer plants. There's no such thing as a "free" lunch. Steve. | ||
| Bomber |
interesting analogy was printed in Car & Driver in the late 70s (Bedard, perhaps?) Showed an oil-crisis caused spike in pertochemical prices on average of once every 11 years since the dawn of dino-oil's wide-spread use. also illstrated how whale oil and petro-products were available in a parallel manner for some years (for lighting and lube), wiht the petro stuff being much more expensive than whale oil for quite some time (mostly due to a mature technology for harvesting the whale-based stuff, and a developing {read, expensive} technology for getting the gooey stuff out of the ground). as soon as the black gold got cheaper to produce than the whale-based products, poof! zippo-bang!, large ocean-living mammals breathed a slight sigh of releif, and the whale based oil market vanished in a matter of a few years (although watch makers coninued to swaer that nothing but highly refined whale oil was the oil suitable lube for the efforts of their labors -- ain't trvia fun?) it's gonna be awhile before the price of alt fuels falls, and petro stuff raises (note, price, not price plus taxes) to the point of parity, and my bet will be that the gubmint will likely be subsidizing the alt fuel effort in order for that too happen (anyone here other than Thang, Court and Brother Gess old enough to remember the price of semiconductors until the feds started buyin em by the truckload?) like Thang said, pricing of this stuff ain't simple (little is, really, other than me), and many alt fuel winds up being less than attractive when everything is taken into account (covering the Gulf of Mexico with solar panel would power LA just fine, but may have an un-intended consequence to two) this particualr passion play will be fun to watch, though! | ||
| Midknyte |
I think it was on the Shawn Hannity show about 2 or so weeks ago. They were talking up the war and our dependence on middle east oil... Anyway, he brought up the statistic that, if that we were to only double the mileage efficiency of [all] our cars, we could reduce our oil consumption by 80%. Couple that with our own current domestic production of 12% of our oil needs. Leaving us with only an 8% need compared to current intake, which could be bought from / supplied by other countries (Russia, Canada, etc.) - thereby eliminating our dependence on Middle East oil altogether. Assuming that this is all accurate, and possible (requires replacement of nearly our whole country's fleet of vehicles), it makes you wonder what would be the effect of us essentially pulling ALL of our $$ and involvement out of the region. Would that pending economic collapse in itself solve a lot of our problems? They'd no longer have the cash to build or buy many weapons. Nah, wouldn't work. You'd have to get all of us Americans to get new cars AND give up drugs (their next best cash crop they'd sell us...). | ||
| Blake |
We ain't the only customers buying mid-east oil. China and India are rapidly becoming oil gluttons too. The free market is a wonderful thing. So is having lots of oil to sell. I don't see how the world trade organization puts up with OPEC, price fixing at its best and most blatant. I thought that was supposed to be illegal.  | ||
| Midknyte |
China and India are rapidly becoming oil gluttons too. Very good point. If we were to extricate ourselves from their marketplace, then the above would have [the greater] influence over that region. That would not be good. | ||
| Bomber |
price fixing is only illegal if you can enforce the existing laws -- not sure OPEC is covered by any, and they certainly don't have to comply with US statutes | ||
| Davegess |
Using less would seem to be the sensible thing to do. Not sure if we, meaning everyone in the world is, are capable of controlling our appitite for more of everything. Bigger cars, bigger homes, biger bodies. In Europe they tax the daylights out stuff to control those appitites. Perhaps a high level serious marketing campaign could convince people that less is more without the government stepping and forcing the issue. Of course the government would have to pay for the effort | ||
| Road_thing |
OPEC is not calling the shots. They set "target prices," but the market lately has been willing to pay more. From today's The Economist: Like Nigeria, the ten other member states of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) have failed to expand, upgrade and refurbish their production capacity in line with rapid increases in world demand. As a consequence, the cartel’s production capacity is now stretched close to its limits. Exactly where those limits lie is unclear—the uncertainty is itself a source of volatility in the oil price. But the International Energy Agency (IEA), which advises oil-consuming nations, estimates that OPEC, excluding Iraq, could sustain output of about 27.8m bpd. Last month, it produced 27.5m bpd. This month, its margin of spare capacity narrowed even further. Without a buffer stock of oil, the cartel cannot do its job of setting the price. If Nigeria, Iraq or Venezuela suffers a little local difficulty, other cartel members are supposed to step in and take up the slack. Markets now fear that supplies are drawn tight as a “taut piano wire”, says the IEA. The markets are thus tuned to respond to any disruption or disturbance, whether it be Hurricane Ivan menacing oil platforms in the Mexican Gulf or jokers with guns menacing oil firms in the Niger delta. The IEA itself believes this tension will soon pass. OPEC, it points out, is now doing its best to keep prices down and will do better as new fields come on line. On Tuesday, Saudi Arabia said that two new oilfields, in Abu Safah and Qatif, would add another 500,000 bpd to the kingdom’s capacity, bringing it up to 11m bpd. Russia, the biggest oil producer outside of OPEC, is also ramping up production, even as it clamps down on Yukos, its biggest private-sector oil group. On Wednesday, the latest figures from America's Energy Information Administration showed that the country's stocks of crude are recovering from Hurricane Ivan more quickly than expected. The surprising rise in oil inventories, the first in nine weeks, prompted a rapid fall in the oil price. The IEA also sees grounds for optimism on the demand side of the oil market. America's summer "driving season" put a premium on the "sweet", low-sulphur crude best suited to the nation's petrol pumps. In the winter months, oil refiners will use more of the heavier, high-sulphur crude, which is suited to heating the homes of the north-east. Saudi Arabia, which produces plenty of the heavier crude, will then be in a better position to meet the market’s needs; and Nigeria, which produces the sweeter oil, will be in no position to frustrate them. If the IEA is right, then, the world can soon look forward to a time when the oil price is once again set in Saudi Arabia’s desert sands, not Nigeria’s troubled swamps. (I added the underlining for emphasis) Source: http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3238988 rt | ||
| Road_thing |
If you're worried about oil prices, worry about China. Worry about 1.3 BILLION people stepping up their consumption as the country's economy expands. Even if they all ride small-displacement motorbikes like much of SE Asia, they will have a huge effect on the point where world supply and demand curves intersect. And there ain't a thing we can do about it. rt | ||
| Jlnance  |
Very good point. If we were to extricate ourselves from their marketplace, then the above would have [the greater] influence over that region. That would not be good. I don't know. If we didn't need to import oil would we really need to care what happened in the middle east? | ||
| Aesquire |
I've been telling people for years, "If you believe in global warming, you can't let the Chinese drive SUV's" & "The only way to prevent that, is to nuke Peking, & compensate with the nuclear winter" I say that, because the first part of it is true, and to shock people, (not the global warming part, that science is still pending, but the idea of China consuming more oil will crank the cost up. I do not seriously advocate atomic hell as a policy. ) Guess what? The Chinese are driving SUV's, the cost of oil is up, and the Chi-Com religious dictatorship is using the money power we give them, ( by us buying cheap stuff from them ), to manipulate the price of oil, steel, etc. Now that the U.S. election is over, they have admitted buying more steel, etc., than needed. | ||
| Outrider  |
And to think most of the folks here don't believe that China is our real enemy...both politically and economically. We are going to lose this one kids. Big Time! | ||
| Brucelee |
"but the idea of China consuming more oil will crank the cost up." Are you suggesting that the Chinese people are not entitled to purchase and use oil and other energy products? | ||
| Blake |
Might be tough though to support a war against us if they lose their source of funding by doing so. It is definitely a double edged sword and fortunately we pretty much have control of it. Also interesting to note that China has tied firmly its currency to the USA dollar. Hmmm... the dollar's value has been declining. China is bigger and with more people, but like us, they cannnot go it alone in the world. The only reason they posture themselves against us militarily is because they are opposed to democracy; why?... The government of China is communist and their culture is ALL about "saving face." Enter Taiwan. Yet we are supporting them, the communists. How the heck did that happen? I mean after taking down the Soviet communists, how did we drop the ball wrt China? Please don't answer. I know the answer.  | ||
| Glitch  |
If you believe in global warming now, then you were probably getting ready for the next ice age that was predicted back in the 70s. I remember when the big scare was that America was causing an Ice Age, IIRC it should be hitting us about now. |
