oilfield math

mhmacw

Oilfield Math:


Think of it this way:


A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons per year.

A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons per year.

So, that average Cash for Clunkers transaction planned to reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.

They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.

More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars.

So, we paid $3 Billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.

We spent $8.57 for every $1.00 we saved!!

I'm pretty sure they will do a GREAT JOB

with our health care, though.

Serendipity

Well, solar panels / wind farms / etc. which are designed to reduce energy consumption also cost money. All engineering involves compromise.

obieone

You gotta stop using that old math. It just doesn't work anymore;)

Rodeo0530

This will undoubtedly be a closed thread soon enough I believe. Why does politics/government have to be brought up on an audio forum?

polrbehr

I like math, too.

So, anyone who wants to can send me $8.57 (or multiples thereof), and I will send them $2 (or multiples... you get the idea) for each -
I can do better than Uncle here, but only for a limited time, so hurry.

PM me with your contact information, I will notify my bank to expect a sudden windfall.

bobman1235

I thought the point was environmental, not economical....

schwarcw

This is what you'll get when you allow lawyers and politicians to make technical, scientific, medical or even common sense decisions.

polrbehr

bobman1235 wrote: »

I thought the point was environmental, not economical....

OPs thread title says "math" --- so I ran with it

I get what you're saying though.

Serendipity

I was thinking about replacing my Maxima with a Nissan Cube or Versa... I know it will cost more upfront but the new car will pollute less compared to the old one.

And I'll have a more reliable car in the end too!

Polkersince85

Save the planet and dollars, too.

Volkswagen's $600 car gets 258 mpg -- It looks like Ford, Chrysler and GM missed the boat again!

China launches $600 car that will get 258 mpg

This $600 car is no toy and is ready to be released in China next year.

The single seater aero car totes VW (Volkswagen) branding.

Volkswagen did a lot of very highly protected testing of this car in Germany, but it was not announced until now where the car would make it's first appearance.

The car was introduced at the VW stockholders meeting as the most economical car in the world is presented.

The initial objective of the prototype was to prove that 1 liter of fuel could deliver 100 kilos of travel.

Spartan interior doesn't sacrifice safety

The aero design proved essential to getting the desired result. The body is 3.47 meters long and just 1.25 meters wide, and a little over a meter high. The prototype was made completely of carbon fiber and is not painted to save weight.

The power plant is a one cylinder diesel positioned ahead of the rear axle and combined with an automatic shift controlled by a knob in the interior.

Safety was not compromised as the impact and roll-over protection is comparable to the GT racing cars.

$600 car gets 258 mpg

The Most Economic Car in the World will be on sale next year:

Better than Electric Car – 258 milees/gallon: IPO 2010 in Shanghai

This is a single seated car

From conception to production: 3 years and the company is headquartered in Hamburg , Germany ..

Will be selling for 4000 yuan, equivalent to US$ 600..

Gas tank capacity = 1.7 gallons

Speed = 62 – 74.6 Miles/hour

Fuel efficiency = 258 miles/gallon

Travel distance with a full tank = 404 miles




Volkswagen 258 mpg car on sale in 2010

snow

I think to be realistic about this you need to add a little differently even if you use the 224 million gallon gas figure, the $$ saved at $3.00 per gallon is 772 million dollars saved. And lets say the average lifespan of a vehicle is 10 years which in most cases will actually be longer, so the saving would add up to 7.72 billion in that short timespan. Not even factoring in the instant boost of $$ going back into the economy or the greenhouse gas emissions reduced over that period of time with cleaner burning cars using less gas. There is actually a + side to this then.



REGARDS SNOW

jimmydep

I got $4500 for my Son's clunker, I'm happy.

Serendipity

snow wrote: »

Not even factoring in the instant boost of $$ going back into the economy or the greenhouse gas emissions reduced over that period of time with cleaner burning cars using less gas. There is actually a + side to this then.

REGARDS SNOW

+1

Also lower emissions = cleaner air. Which is good for those with respiratory conditions, such as lung disease or lung cancer. I agree there is a + side to this.

Polkersince85

More pics.

snow

Serendipity wrote: »

+1

Also lower emissions = cleaner air. Which is good for those with respiratory conditions, such as lung disease or lung cancer. I agree there is a + side to this.

And the $$ saved by lower medical costs such as fewer emergency room visits due to cleaner air. It all adds up over a period of time. Every single thing we do today has an impact on us longterm, for example we get short term gratification by paying less $$ buying products made overseas cheaper today at a cost of jobs and a tax base in the future for our children. We as a nation need to start thinking about how our decisions today will impact us as a nation later in all respects.



REGARDS SNOW

shack

I agree with snow...:eek:...you can't compare the savings over a single year period for an initiative like the cash for clunkers. It is a long term program which over the lifetime of the vehicles will make up the difference in cost for dealing with environmental and health issues in addition to the fuel cost savings.

It does not make economical sense "at this time" for an individual to get rid of a gas burner to buy a more efficient vehicle when you factor in the cost of the new vehicle over the fuel savings. That math does not work. It takes an external source (unfortunately in this case the govt) to make it feasible.

What would make the math work is to let the cost of fuel rise to $5, $6 or $7 (or more) a gallon and all the sudden...it makes sense. Unless there is no alternative the public will not stand for this. Problem is...there may not be a choice if we don't do something now to get off the oil ****.

It is always easy and usually cheaper to "stay the course" and worry about the future in the future. At some point the future comes and the costs are too much to bear. An therein lies the problem...do we address the issue now or wait until it becomes critical. I want to develop as many alternate fuel and energy sources as possible NOW. Let China and India and the masses burn all the oil and continue to pollute their land. Do we really want to get into a bidding war with them for oil and coal. That would not be in our best interest as a nation.

As much as I like to drive and like cheap gas...I realize we have to start doing something soon...or the things I enjoy doing…like driving may become a luxury item that is not affordable.

concealer404

bobman1235 wrote: »

I thought the point was environmental, not economical....

I wish i could be convinced that that was the case.

bobman1235

concealer404 wrote: »

I wish i could be convinced that that was the case.

Well, look, it obviously wasn't directly economical, since by any estimate there was at least a short-term net loss.

I guess you could say it was political, as those behind it used it to brag about their environmental awareness, but EVERYTHING is political in that way, so... environmental is all you really have. Whether it was a success in that way.... well, that's up to you.

I-SIG

snow wrote: »

And the $$ saved by lower medical costs such as fewer emergency room visits due to cleaner air. It all adds up over a period of time. Every single thing we do today has an impact on us longterm, for example we get short term gratification by paying less $$ buying products made overseas cheaper today at a cost of jobs and a tax base in the future for our children. We as a nation need to start thinking about how our decisions today will impact us as a nation later in all respects.



REGARDS SNOW

I guess it's a good thing we've had Iraq and A'stan because when I hit some idiot that pulls out on front of me in that VW with my F150, they will need battlefield trauma to save their **** and then all those other savings are POOF!!!

Oh wait....ObamaCare will ration the medical procedures needed to save them so nevermind. Their **** is grass!

Wes

Serendipity

The way I see it is to promote the purchase of cleaner, less polluting, fuel efficient vehicles.

snow

I-SIG wrote: »

I guess it's a good thing we've had Iraq and A'stan because when I hit some idiot that pulls out on front of me in that VW with my F150, they will need battlefield trauma to save their **** and then all those other savings are POOF!!!

Oh wait....ObamaCare will ration the medical procedures needed to save them so nevermind. Their **** is grass!

Wes

I dont see what your comment has to do with anything I said To start with I never mentioned any particular type or brand of vehicle only that by getting gas guzzlers off the road will eventually pay off in the long run economically irregardless of what type of healthcare is avaialable. Bringing up the most recent healthcare plan only serves to cause problems and will bring this thread to a quick closure, not that I disagree with your view on it only that this is not the best platform to discuss it

REGARDS SNOW

I-SIG

snow wrote: »

I dont see what your comment has to do with anything I said To start with I never mentioned any particular type or brand of vehicle only that by getting gas guzzlers off the road will eventually pay off in the long run economically irregardless of what type of healthcare is avaialable. Bringing up the most recent healthcare plan only serves to cause problems and will bring this thread to a quick closure, not that I disagree with your view on it only that this is not the best platform to discuss it

REGARDS SNOW

I was simply trying to point out that every choice has consequences, some intended and some unintended.

Maybe it's break-even? Spend $100k recovering from a severe car accident or with inflation, time-value of money, etc. a million bucks in a few years.

Is your life (or anyone else's) worth saving a few pounds of carbon now? All I'm saying is that it's just shifting costs around.

ETA: Heck...who knows....maybe ObamaCare gets repealed or substantially modified in 2012 and that person gets the care needed for a full recovery from a severe car accident and not an amputee or paraplegic.

Wes

wingnut4772

Polkersince85 wrote: »

Save the planet and dollars, too.

Volkswagen's $600 car gets 258 mpg -- It looks like Ford, Chrysler and GM missed the boat again!

China launches $600 car that will get 258 mpg

This $600 car is no toy and is ready to be released in China next year.

The single seater aero car totes VW (Volkswagen) branding.

Volkswagen did a lot of very highly protected testing of this car in Germany, but it was not announced until now where the car would make it's first appearance.

The car was introduced at the VW stockholders meeting as the most economical car in the world is presented.

The initial objective of the prototype was to prove that 1 liter of fuel could deliver 100 kilos of travel.

Spartan interior doesn't sacrifice safety

The aero design proved essential to getting the desired result. The body is 3.47 meters long and just 1.25 meters wide, and a little over a meter high. The prototype was made completely of carbon fiber and is not painted to save weight.

The power plant is a one cylinder diesel positioned ahead of the rear axle and combined with an automatic shift controlled by a knob in the interior.

Safety was not compromised as the impact and roll-over protection is comparable to the GT racing cars.

$600 car gets 258 mpg

The Most Economic Car in the World will be on sale next year:

Better than Electric Car – 258 milees/gallon: IPO 2010 in Shanghai

This is a single seated car

From conception to production: 3 years and the company is headquartered in Hamburg , Germany ..

Will be selling for 4000 yuan, equivalent to US$ 600..

Gas tank capacity = 1.7 gallons

Speed = 62 – 74.6 Miles/hour

Fuel efficiency = 258 miles/gallon

Travel distance with a full tank = 404 miles




Volkswagen 258 mpg car on sale in 2010

I can't wait to run this over with my Hummer.

snow

I-SIG wrote: »

I was simply trying to point out that every choice has consequences, some intended and some unintended.

Maybe it's break-even? Spend $100k recovering from a severe car accident or with inflation, time-value of money, etc. a million bucks in a few years.

Is your life (or anyone else's) worth saving a few pounds of carbon now? All I'm saying is that it's just shifting costs around.

ETA: Heck...who knows....maybe ObamaCare gets repealed or substantially modified in 2012 and that person gets the care needed for a full recovery from a severe car accident and not an amputee or paraplegic.

Wes

Well my belief is that you dont need huge hunks of steel on wheels to be safe most not all newer autos are safer than they ever have been in the past even though they are smaller and lighter with the advent of engines dropping rather than being pushed into the passenger compartment, trunks that use an accordian style design that take a rear impact much better than a traditional design, airbags for driver and passenger front and side and many other safety features that are not used in older autos.

Coupled with that as time goes on the odds increase that if you get in an accident it will be with another smaller auto simply because there are more of them on the road, for every one that got traded in another smaller lighter generally safer auto was put on the road.

REGARDS SNOW

Jetmaker737

Wasn't the main idea of cash for clunkers to spur the economy and help the auto industry?

Also I agree that the one year savings calculation by the OP is not appropriate. You need to sum up the savings over the life of the cars. Going by the math in the OP it breaks even in 9 years, plus saves emissions, plus spurs the economy, etc.

Sounds like a successful plan.

obieone

It's just money folks. We can always print more:rolleyes:

wingnut4772

Lasareath wrote: »

Are you going to run in over while it's parked or while somebody is driving it?

Whichever opportunity presents itself.

madmax

wingnut4772 wrote: »

I can't wait to run this over with my Hummer.

Shoot, I can't wait to run over that thing with my Scion xB...
madmax

wingnut4772

I just being silly but I would not want to be in that thing on the road when Hummers do exist. And semis, Mack trucks, or anything really. Maybe if a Smart Car hit it...

falconcry72

mhmacw wrote: »

Oilfield Math:


Think of it this way:


A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons per year.

A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons per year.

So, that average Cash for Clunkers transaction planned to reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.

They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.

More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars.

So, we paid $3 Billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.

We spent $8.57 for every $1.00 we saved!!

I'm pretty sure they will do a GREAT JOB

with our health care, though.

First off, I'm not political. Second, I can't believe no one else pointed out this HUGE FLAW in the logic ... (and I'm not even that good at math!:p)

What the OP said only makes sense if the USA was only going to exist for one year. With your numbers, we'll save $350M PER YEAR, so, using your math, after 8.57 years we'll break even, and then every year thereafter we'll be in the black.

shack

falconcry72 wrote: »

First off, I'm not political. Second, I can't believe no one else pointed out this HUGE FLAW in the logic ... (and I'm not even that good at math!:p)

What the OP said only makes sense if the USA was only going to exist for one year. With your numbers, we'll save $350M PER YEAR, so, using your math, after 8.57 years we'll break even, and then every year thereafter we'll be in the black.

The extended time factor to recoup the cost of the program and the long term benefits have been mentioned at least 2 or 3 times before your post.