|
|
|
|
 |
MarkR
 |
|
Unfortunaly it was in a Swedish car publication but according to the article BMW are planning to offer no more NA 6-cylinder engines as the turbos gives better MPG and are quicker.
Wow! guess if the old beemer guys are screaming on bmw sites in Sweden at least. Then again, as the younger say, don't care, the new engines are faster and more economical.
Sad days with engine sound but life goes on...
Wonder if Honda will be the last NA engine manufacturer in the world, will they do IMA on all to compete with forced induction?
|
notyper
|
|
Yeah, that really sucks. Just had an E36 M3 on the dyno with a Euro motor. Blueprinted bottom end, some bigger cams and standalone engine management and it put down 360 whp at a glorious 8200 rpm (about what an E92 M3 V8 puts down stock). Smooth torque all the way across and oh so responsive.
Also did an E30 race car last month with a 2.5 evolution engine with all the BMW Motorsport goodies and full build. 300 whp. Now, mind you we can get that out of a moderate K24 build on pump gas these days, but the S14 engine is a 25 year old design. That's pretty sweet.
I'm going to miss those types of engines.
SC
|
eneka
|
|
maybe for their regular vehicles but the ceo of the M division specifically stated NA engines aren't dead.....yet.
Among many topics being discussed, the one that stood out again is the comparison of turbocharged engines versus fans’ darlings, naturally-aspirated units. Surprisingly enough, the M boss says that “The naturally aspirated engine is not dead yet,” despite the current advantages of turbo engines in terms of efficiency and power output.
Dr. Nitschke concludes that at the moment turbocharged powerplants make more sense.
http://www.bmwblog.com/2012/08/17/bmw-m-ceo-the-naturally-aspirated-engine-is-not-dead-yet/
|
TonyEX
|
|
notyper wrote:
....
I'm going to miss those types of engines.
SC
|
REALLY?
Meaning, are we really going to MISS those engines in North America?
OK.. before you yell at me.. what I _really_ mean is:
Are powerful NA engines really going away in North America?
See... it's all POLITICAL.
There is NO SHORTAGE of OIL.
There is NO GLOBAL WARMING.
North America has record oil reserves and we're finding more and more (yes, even in Kern County, California (*) ).
Oil prices are reflective of failed politically driven economic policies and speculators (Soros is invested heavily in oil (**) ).
So, forget the politics in Europe, they are screwed.
If the right change happens in the US come November, you are going to see a tremendous shift in energy policy.. one driven towards reality.
Meaning...
Much lower oil costs.
Much more realistic CAFE numbers
Much more realistic EPA policies.
This means, simply that the huge cost of the current absurd EPA/CAFE numbers... -unreal crap that only would make sense to some urban, bus riding, car less denizen of SF or NYC- will disappear.
Then, you will see that the cheaper cost of a clean, efficient normally aspirated engine will make sense again.
The poor germans will be hobbled by their own insane Euro bureaucrats.
Just hope that in North America we don't go that route.
(*) http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2009/11nov/calif1109.cfm...
Note that the crazy environmentalists in my state are really playing this down... Note the LA Times..."But some worry it could lead to a false sense of security."
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/24/business/fi-cal-oil24
(**) http://tammybruce.com/2010/06/obama-boss-george-soros-ready-to-profit-from-oil-disaster.html
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gadhafi-west-oilcompanies-conflict/2011/03/17/id/389809
|
Hondu
|
|
TonyE wrote:
notyper wrote:
....
I'm going to miss those types of engines.
SC
|
REALLY?
Meaning, are we really going to MISS those engines in North America?
OK.. before you yell at me.. what I _really_ mean is:
Are powerful NA engines really going away in North America?
See... it's all POLITICAL.
There is NO SHORTAGE of OIL.
There is NO GLOBAL WARMING.
North America has record oil reserves and we're finding more and more (yes, even in Kern County, California (*) ).
Oil prices are reflective of failed politically driven economic policies and speculators (Soros is invested heavily in oil (**) ).
So, forget the politics in Europe, they are screwed.
If the right change happens in the US come November, you are going to see a tremendous shift in energy policy.. one driven towards reality.
Meaning...
Much lower oil costs.
Much more realistic CAFE numbers
Much more realistic EPA policies.
This means, simply that the huge cost of the current absurd EPA/CAFE numbers... -unreal crap that only would make sense to some urban, bus riding, car less denizen of SF or NYC- will disappear.
Then, you will see that the cheaper cost of a clean, efficient normally aspirated engine will make sense again.
The poor germans will be hobbled by their own insane Euro bureaucrats.
Just hope that in North America we don't go that route.
(*) http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2009/11nov/calif1109.cfm...
Note that the crazy environmentalists in my state are really playing this down... Note the LA Times..."But some worry it could lead to a false sense of security."
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/24/business/fi-cal-oil24
(**) http://tammybruce.com/2010/06/obama-boss-george-soros-ready-to-profit-from-oil-disaster.html
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gadhafi-west-oilcompanies-conflict/2011/03/17/id/389809
|
So you think with Romney in office oil prices will drop? Last time a Republican was in office they were on their way to $150 a barrel and they were still putting oil in the SOR, until of course the Great Recession started. If I remember right, that last time we had "cheap" oil, a Democrat was in office. The rise in CAFE regulations began with Bush in office... (politically I am neutral/independent and Goldman Sachs controls the price of oil anyway, not anyone in the White House).
|
dampflok
|
|
BMW dropping NA sixes, Honda dropping double wishies. It's the end of an era.
|
330R
|
|
|
Might want to shop for those E36s, E46s, and E39s before prices go on the rise...
|
DrWhiner
|
|
|
Tell me when prices of ITR went up???
|
330R
|
|
|
When NA engines were no longer available from Honda.
|
330R
|
|
|
But in case you actually gave a crap and weren't just being the argumentative instigator you've been since your Blue_Sky_surfer days, a hater of anything actually fun in the car world, who never speaks word one of their own car, their own reason for being here... ITR prices in the States have been holding steady between $13k and $15k for the better ones for the past several years.
|
TonyEX
|
|
Hondu wrote:
TonyE wrote:
notyper wrote:
....
I'm going to miss those types of engines.
SC
|
REALLY?
Meaning, are we really going to MISS those engines in North America?
OK.. before you yell at me.. what I _really_ mean is:
Are powerful NA engines really going away in North America?
See... it's all POLITICAL.
There is NO SHORTAGE of OIL.
There is NO GLOBAL WARMING.
North America has record oil reserves and we're finding more and more (yes, even in Kern County, California (*) ).
Oil prices are reflective of failed politically driven economic policies and speculators (Soros is invested heavily in oil (**) ).
So, forget the politics in Europe, they are screwed.
If the right change happens in the US come November, you are going to see a tremendous shift in energy policy.. one driven towards reality.
Meaning...
Much lower oil costs.
Much more realistic CAFE numbers
Much more realistic EPA policies.
This means, simply that the huge cost of the current absurd EPA/CAFE numbers... -unreal crap that only would make sense to some urban, bus riding, car less denizen of SF or NYC- will disappear.
Then, you will see that the cheaper cost of a clean, efficient normally aspirated engine will make sense again.
The poor germans will be hobbled by their own insane Euro bureaucrats.
Just hope that in North America we don't go that route.
(*) http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2009/11nov/calif1109.cfm...
Note that the crazy environmentalists in my state are really playing this down... Note the LA Times..."But some worry it could lead to a false sense of security."
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/24/business/fi-cal-oil24
(**) http://tammybruce.com/2010/06/obama-boss-george-soros-ready-to-profit-from-oil-disaster.html
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gadhafi-west-oilcompanies-conflict/2011/03/17/id/389809
|
So you think with Romney in office oil prices will drop? Last time a Republican was in office they were on their way to $150 a barrel and they were still putting oil in the SOR, until of course the Great Recession started. If I remember right, that last time we had "cheap" oil, a Democrat was in office. The rise in CAFE regulations began with Bush in office... (politically I am neutral/independent and Goldman Sachs controls the price of oil anyway, not anyone in the White House).
|
Oil was just around 2 bucks a gallon in 2007/2008.
The price of oil is based on the speculation where oil availability will be a couple of years hence.
An administration that is keenly moving licenses along and is effectively setting up an energy policy that uses domestic oil and natural gas resources will drive energy prices down. Please note that Romney did include Canada and Mexico into his speech.
And administration the re-values the value of the dollar will be lowering the effective price of imported oil in dollars.
Also, we've been finding lots of new oil in NA in the last eight years or so... hence you can not compare administrations prior to that. They all thought we had compatibly less oil that the Middle East... it turns out nowadays that NA has more oil reserves.
So, you can only compare Bush and Obama. Bush effectively worked with oil exploration firms.. hence our current production of oil is good. Obama, OTOH, has blocked new production at every turn, hence unless something is done very soon, domestic production will plateau and start to decline in two or three years with no reversal in sight.
|
Hondu
|
|
TonyE wrote:
Hondu wrote:
TonyE wrote:
notyper wrote:
....
I'm going to miss those types of engines.
SC
|
REALLY?
Meaning, are we really going to MISS those engines in North America?
OK.. before you yell at me.. what I _really_ mean is:
Are powerful NA engines really going away in North America?
See... it's all POLITICAL.
There is NO SHORTAGE of OIL.
There is NO GLOBAL WARMING.
North America has record oil reserves and we're finding more and more (yes, even in Kern County, California (*) ).
Oil prices are reflective of failed politically driven economic policies and speculators (Soros is invested heavily in oil (**) ).
So, forget the politics in Europe, they are screwed.
If the right change happens in the US come November, you are going to see a tremendous shift in energy policy.. one driven towards reality.
Meaning...
Much lower oil costs.
Much more realistic CAFE numbers
Much more realistic EPA policies.
This means, simply that the huge cost of the current absurd EPA/CAFE numbers... -unreal crap that only would make sense to some urban, bus riding, car less denizen of SF or NYC- will disappear.
Then, you will see that the cheaper cost of a clean, efficient normally aspirated engine will make sense again.
The poor germans will be hobbled by their own insane Euro bureaucrats.
Just hope that in North America we don't go that route.
(*) http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2009/11nov/calif1109.cfm...
Note that the crazy environmentalists in my state are really playing this down... Note the LA Times..."But some worry it could lead to a false sense of security."
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/24/business/fi-cal-oil24
(**) http://tammybruce.com/2010/06/obama-boss-george-soros-ready-to-profit-from-oil-disaster.html
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gadhafi-west-oilcompanies-conflict/2011/03/17/id/389809
|
So you think with Romney in office oil prices will drop? Last time a Republican was in office they were on their way to $150 a barrel and they were still putting oil in the SOR, until of course the Great Recession started. If I remember right, that last time we had "cheap" oil, a Democrat was in office. The rise in CAFE regulations began with Bush in office... (politically I am neutral/independent and Goldman Sachs controls the price of oil anyway, not anyone in the White House).
|
Oil was just around 2 bucks a gallon in 2007/2008.
The price of oil is based on the speculation where oil availability will be a couple of years hence.
An administration that is keenly moving licenses along and is effectively setting up an energy policy that uses domestic oil and natural gas resources will drive energy prices down. Please note that Romney did include Canada and Mexico into his speech.
And administration the re-values the value of the dollar will be lowering the effective price of imported oil in dollars.
Also, we've been finding lots of new oil in NA in the last eight years or so... hence you can not compare administrations prior to that. They all thought we had compatibly less oil that the Middle East... it turns out nowadays that NA has more oil reserves.
So, you can only compare Bush and Obama. Bush effectively worked with oil exploration firms.. hence our current production of oil is good. Obama, OTOH, has blocked new production at every turn, hence unless something is done very soon, domestic production will plateau and start to decline in two or three years with no reversal in sight.
|
Re-valuing the dollar would be a stupid move, and I don't think any administration can change it anyhow (not unless our deficit is reduced, which no party has the stomach to pull off and do the real changes needed). A strong dollar would really destroy manufacuring in this country, which is one of the few bright spots for the last few years. Creating a strong dollar to enable cheaper imports of oil is one of dumbest ideas I've heard in a long time.
As you say that Obama is limiting new production at every turn, yet under his watch oil production has increased to the highest it has been in years in this country. Sounds like a contradiction to me. By the way, the main reason for the limits was the BP disaster in the Gulf, which they were enacted due to political pressures to show they were doing something about the issue, which any administration probably would have done as well (be it Dem or Rep).
Bush effectively pushed the price of oil prices higher in the name of "national security" by pumping oil into the SOR reserve while prices were increasing, while Bill Clinton helped lower the price of oil by doing the exact opposite. Why would you buy high, like Bush did, unless you wanted to help your oil buddies in Texas?
So under Bush oil production went down and under Obama oil production has started going back up and continues to do so (crude oil production in this country did not start heading back on an upward trend until 2009).
|
owequitit
|
|
Hondu wrote:
TonyE wrote:
Hondu wrote:
TonyE wrote:
notyper wrote:
....
I'm going to miss those types of engines.
SC
|
REALLY?
Meaning, are we really going to MISS those engines in North America?
OK.. before you yell at me.. what I _really_ mean is:
Are powerful NA engines really going away in North America?
See... it's all POLITICAL.
There is NO SHORTAGE of OIL.
There is NO GLOBAL WARMING.
North America has record oil reserves and we're finding more and more (yes, even in Kern County, California (*) ).
Oil prices are reflective of failed politically driven economic policies and speculators (Soros is invested heavily in oil (**) ).
So, forget the politics in Europe, they are screwed.
If the right change happens in the US come November, you are going to see a tremendous shift in energy policy.. one driven towards reality.
Meaning...
Much lower oil costs.
Much more realistic CAFE numbers
Much more realistic EPA policies.
This means, simply that the huge cost of the current absurd EPA/CAFE numbers... -unreal crap that only would make sense to some urban, bus riding, car less denizen of SF or NYC- will disappear.
Then, you will see that the cheaper cost of a clean, efficient normally aspirated engine will make sense again.
The poor germans will be hobbled by their own insane Euro bureaucrats.
Just hope that in North America we don't go that route.
(*) http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2009/11nov/calif1109.cfm...
Note that the crazy environmentalists in my state are really playing this down... Note the LA Times..."But some worry it could lead to a false sense of security."
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/24/business/fi-cal-oil24
(**) http://tammybruce.com/2010/06/obama-boss-george-soros-ready-to-profit-from-oil-disaster.html
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gadhafi-west-oilcompanies-conflict/2011/03/17/id/389809
|
So you think with Romney in office oil prices will drop? Last time a Republican was in office they were on their way to $150 a barrel and they were still putting oil in the SOR, until of course the Great Recession started. If I remember right, that last time we had "cheap" oil, a Democrat was in office. The rise in CAFE regulations began with Bush in office... (politically I am neutral/independent and Goldman Sachs controls the price of oil anyway, not anyone in the White House).
|
Oil was just around 2 bucks a gallon in 2007/2008.
The price of oil is based on the speculation where oil availability will be a couple of years hence.
An administration that is keenly moving licenses along and is effectively setting up an energy policy that uses domestic oil and natural gas resources will drive energy prices down. Please note that Romney did include Canada and Mexico into his speech.
And administration the re-values the value of the dollar will be lowering the effective price of imported oil in dollars.
Also, we've been finding lots of new oil in NA in the last eight years or so... hence you can not compare administrations prior to that. They all thought we had compatibly less oil that the Middle East... it turns out nowadays that NA has more oil reserves.
So, you can only compare Bush and Obama. Bush effectively worked with oil exploration firms.. hence our current production of oil is good. Obama, OTOH, has blocked new production at every turn, hence unless something is done very soon, domestic production will plateau and start to decline in two or three years with no reversal in sight.
|
Re-valuing the dollar would be a stupid move, and I don't think any administration can change it anyhow (not unless our deficit is reduced, which no party has the stomach to pull off and do the real changes needed). A strong dollar would really destroy manufacuring in this country, which is one of the few bright spots for the last few years. Creating a strong dollar to enable cheaper imports of oil is one of dumbest ideas I've heard in a long time.
As you say that Obama is limiting new production at every turn, yet under his watch oil production has increased to the highest it has been in years in this country. Sounds like a contradiction to me. By the way, the main reason for the limits was the BP disaster in the Gulf, which they were enacted due to political pressures to show they were doing something about the issue, which any administration probably would have done as well (be it Dem or Rep).
Bush effectively pushed the price of oil prices higher in the name of "national security" by pumping oil into the SOR reserve while prices were increasing, while Bill Clinton helped lower the price of oil by doing the exact opposite. Why would you buy high, like Bush did, unless you wanted to help your oil buddies in Texas?
So under Bush oil production went down and under Obama oil production has started going back up and continues to do so (crude oil production in this country did not start heading back on an upward trend until 2009).
|
You clearly do not understand the intricacies of the oil industry.
1) The reason oil production has increased under Obama is because of the licensing changes Bush made during his 2 terms to ease the restrictions on building new refineries and production. Nominally, prior to bush an oil company was looking at many billions and at least 1-1.5 decades to get through the EPA approval process for more production. Bush pushed at least a few new licenses through on a truncated time frame, hence they are now able to use those licenses to produce more oil. Most of the changes came from the expansion of existing refineries, because it is a lot easier than trying to build a new one.
So while it would seem like a typical "contradiction" on the surface, it is actually an increase in production that happened as a result of policy BEFORE Obama took office. And this is a perfect illustration of what happens when the average person mixes politics and economics, because they typically are not able to seperate the intricacies and complexities of a specific process and instead assume that it occurs in real time. The construction projects necessary to expand production alone would have been a 2-4 year process, which means that approval must have occurred before that time, as did planning, contracting, etc.
Sorry, but on that part, Tony is correct. Oil production is not up because of Obama (he has adamantly and publicly opposed ANY expansion of oil, while passing some nominal policies that would try to help ensure prices stay reasonable so he can get re-elected). In fact, as far as I am concerned, his energy policy has pretty much been an unmitigated failure, with a push toward plug-ins and hybrids that hasn't worked, a curtailing of hydrogen research and infrastructure (which they have recently made a 180* turn on) and a failure of his mass energy projects such as solar and wind that are really incremental perception band-aids to a much larger problem.
You may also want to do some research on the history and effectiveness of the SOR. Your assertions that Bush only added to it are incorrect. He added to it after 9/11, as any GOOD President would have because we had no idea strategically what was going to happen. Considering the region in which 9/11 originated from, not stocking some oil would have been strategic suicide, had events turned out worse than they did. But with no way of knowing, it is pretty hard to fundamentally fault that decision. However, you also didn't mention that he released oil from the SOR several times, especially during his second term.
However, it is all pretty much anecdotal, because the SOR has a very incremental effect on actual supply, and thus any changes to oil prices as a result of SOR changes are pretty much perception based, not reality based.
2)As for the part about "re-valuing" our currency, I also disagree, because as the economy recovers (assuming we can find leadership with enough brain power to allow it to do so), then the dollar will re-value itself. However, while it is nice to see manufacturing doing well, I would posit the argument that it is at a much greater expense, so while it is a bright spot, it doesn't make sense to tank the entire rest of the economy to support manufacturing. Especially since with modern technologies and recent UAW cuts, the wages gained from most manufacturing jobs are only nominally more than other industries, if at all. However, I also believe that will contribute to the strong growth of manufacturing here, even if the dollar does gain value, to a degree, because the costs of manufacturing here are no longer as wildly out of line. Manufacturers who can do business in America without paying someone an effective $35-50 bucks an hour (by the time benefits were figured in) to screw on door handles has good chances, but the reality is that the UAW put themselves into a position where they couldn't compete. The skill set didn't (and still doesn't) warrant that level of pay. Period. As long as they stay reasonable, manufacturing will be fine, but with Obama's strong arm union tactics (because he is in their back pocket), it is unlikely to remain that way. If you want an example, see the legislation that turns any non-vote automatically into a yes...
What really tweaks my ass is that we have all of these liberal groups supporting inflated wages for auto workers because they are "blue collar". We want to pay people who have no continuing education, who may or may not be dropouts $35-50 bucks an hour, but meanwhile we are perfectly fine paying pilots who have invested literally tens of thousands of dollars in ratings, training, education and testing $19,000 a year. How about if we pay BOTH groups what they are worth, and reverse the pay scales?
3) The fact of the matter is that production takes resources. Energy is one of those resources. We WILL use energy to create economic wealth. So, we can either use what we have, we can develop new technology to replace what we have, or we can do both. However, no amount of perception game is going to change the fact that whatever we DO choose to do, if it doesn't pencil out economically, then it won't work. Hence, Obama's misfire on hydrogen was the biggest failure of energy policy in modern times, especially with his marketing angle that he was "forward looking" and wanted to build a better tomorrow. That tomorrow is largely hydrogen based and until he make progress to that end, it isn't going to work. The other technologies he has pushed simply do not have the cost to benefit ratio needed to replace oil.
I also find it ironic how he is vehemently opposed to oil, and yet when he makes changes to alleviate oil prices (many of which are EXACTLY the same as what Bush did variously in the past) he is hailed as a hero, but Bush is hailed as a villian. It shows the large disconnect from reality that many Americans have.
|
Hondu
|
|
owequitit wrote:
Hondu wrote:
TonyE wrote:
Hondu wrote:
TonyE wrote:
notyper wrote:
....
I'm going to miss those types of engines.
SC
|
REALLY?
Meaning, are we really going to MISS those engines in North America?
OK.. before you yell at me.. what I _really_ mean is:
Are powerful NA engines really going away in North America?
See... it's all POLITICAL.
There is NO SHORTAGE of OIL.
There is NO GLOBAL WARMING.
North America has record oil reserves and we're finding more and more (yes, even in Kern County, California (*) ).
Oil prices are reflective of failed politically driven economic policies and speculators (Soros is invested heavily in oil (**) ).
So, forget the politics in Europe, they are screwed.
If the right change happens in the US come November, you are going to see a tremendous shift in energy policy.. one driven towards reality.
Meaning...
Much lower oil costs.
Much more realistic CAFE numbers
Much more realistic EPA policies.
This means, simply that the huge cost of the current absurd EPA/CAFE numbers... -unreal crap that only would make sense to some urban, bus riding, car less denizen of SF or NYC- will disappear.
Then, you will see that the cheaper cost of a clean, efficient normally aspirated engine will make sense again.
The poor germans will be hobbled by their own insane Euro bureaucrats.
Just hope that in North America we don't go that route.
(*) http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2009/11nov/calif1109.cfm...
Note that the crazy environmentalists in my state are really playing this down... Note the LA Times..."But some worry it could lead to a false sense of security."
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/24/business/fi-cal-oil24
(**) http://tammybruce.com/2010/06/obama-boss-george-soros-ready-to-profit-from-oil-disaster.html
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gadhafi-west-oilcompanies-conflict/2011/03/17/id/389809
|
So you think with Romney in office oil prices will drop? Last time a Republican was in office they were on their way to $150 a barrel and they were still putting oil in the SOR, until of course the Great Recession started. If I remember right, that last time we had "cheap" oil, a Democrat was in office. The rise in CAFE regulations began with Bush in office... (politically I am neutral/independent and Goldman Sachs controls the price of oil anyway, not anyone in the White House).
|
Oil was just around 2 bucks a gallon in 2007/2008.
The price of oil is based on the speculation where oil availability will be a couple of years hence.
An administration that is keenly moving licenses along and is effectively setting up an energy policy that uses domestic oil and natural gas resources will drive energy prices down. Please note that Romney did include Canada and Mexico into his speech.
And administration the re-values the value of the dollar will be lowering the effective price of imported oil in dollars.
Also, we've been finding lots of new oil in NA in the last eight years or so... hence you can not compare administrations prior to that. They all thought we had compatibly less oil that the Middle East... it turns out nowadays that NA has more oil reserves.
So, you can only compare Bush and Obama. Bush effectively worked with oil exploration firms.. hence our current production of oil is good. Obama, OTOH, has blocked new production at every turn, hence unless something is done very soon, domestic production will plateau and start to decline in two or three years with no reversal in sight.
|
Re-valuing the dollar would be a stupid move, and I don't think any administration can change it anyhow (not unless our deficit is reduced, which no party has the stomach to pull off and do the real changes needed). A strong dollar would really destroy manufacuring in this country, which is one of the few bright spots for the last few years. Creating a strong dollar to enable cheaper imports of oil is one of dumbest ideas I've heard in a long time.
As you say that Obama is limiting new production at every turn, yet under his watch oil production has increased to the highest it has been in years in this country. Sounds like a contradiction to me. By the way, the main reason for the limits was the BP disaster in the Gulf, which they were enacted due to political pressures to show they were doing something about the issue, which any administration probably would have done as well (be it Dem or Rep).
Bush effectively pushed the price of oil prices higher in the name of "national security" by pumping oil into the SOR reserve while prices were increasing, while Bill Clinton helped lower the price of oil by doing the exact opposite. Why would you buy high, like Bush did, unless you wanted to help your oil buddies in Texas?
So under Bush oil production went down and under Obama oil production has started going back up and continues to do so (crude oil production in this country did not start heading back on an upward trend until 2009).
|
You clearly do not understand the intricacies of the oil industry.
1) The reason oil production has increased under Obama is because of the licensing changes Bush made during his 2 terms to ease the restrictions on building new refineries and production. Nominally, prior to bush an oil company was looking at many billions and at least 1-1.5 decades to get through the EPA approval process for more production. Bush pushed at least a few new licenses through on a truncated time frame, hence they are now able to use those licenses to produce more oil. Most of the changes came from the expansion of existing refineries, because it is a lot easier than trying to build a new one.
So while it would seem like a typical "contradiction" on the surface, it is actually an increase in production that happened as a result of policy BEFORE Obama took office. And this is a perfect illustration of what happens when the average person mixes politics and economics, because they typically are not able to seperate the intricacies and complexities of a specific process and instead assume that it occurs in real time. The construction projects necessary to expand production alone would have been a 2-4 year process, which means that approval must have occurred before that time, as did planning, contracting, etc.
Sorry, but on that part, Tony is correct. Oil production is not up because of Obama (he has adamantly and publicly opposed ANY expansion of oil, while passing some nominal policies that would try to help ensure prices stay reasonable so he can get re-elected). In fact, as far as I am concerned, his energy policy has pretty much been an unmitigated failure, with a push toward plug-ins and hybrids that hasn't worked, a curtailing of hydrogen research and infrastructure (which they have recently made a 180* turn on) and a failure of his mass energy projects such as solar and wind that are really incremental perception band-aids to a much larger problem.
You may also want to do some research on the history and effectiveness of the SOR. Your assertions that Bush only added to it are incorrect. He added to it after 9/11, as any GOOD President would have because we had no idea strategically what was going to happen. Considering the region in which 9/11 originated from, not stocking some oil would have been strategic suicide, had events turned out worse than they did. But with no way of knowing, it is pretty hard to fundamentally fault that decision. However, you also didn't mention that he released oil from the SOR several times, especially during his second term.
However, it is all pretty much anecdotal, because the SOR has a very incremental effect on actual supply, and thus any changes to oil prices as a result of SOR changes are pretty much perception based, not reality based.
2)As for the part about "re-valuing" our currency, I also disagree, because as the economy recovers (assuming we can find leadership with enough brain power to allow it to do so), then the dollar will re-value itself. However, while it is nice to see manufacturing doing well, I would posit the argument that it is at a much greater expense, so while it is a bright spot, it doesn't make sense to tank the entire rest of the economy to support manufacturing. Especially since with modern technologies and recent UAW cuts, the wages gained from most manufacturing jobs are only nominally more than other industries, if at all. However, I also believe that will contribute to the strong growth of manufacturing here, even if the dollar does gain value, to a degree, because the costs of manufacturing here are no longer as wildly out of line. Manufacturers who can do business in America without paying someone an effective $35-50 bucks an hour (by the time benefits were figured in) to screw on door handles has good chances, but the reality is that the UAW put themselves into a position where they couldn't compete. The skill set didn't (and still doesn't) warrant that level of pay. Period. As long as they stay reasonable, manufacturing will be fine, but with Obama's strong arm union tactics (because he is in their back pocket), it is unlikely to remain that way. If you want an example, see the legislation that turns any non-vote automatically into a yes...
What really tweaks my ass is that we have all of these liberal groups supporting inflated wages for auto workers because they are "blue collar". We want to pay people who have no continuing education, who may or may not be dropouts $35-50 bucks an hour, but meanwhile we are perfectly fine paying pilots who have invested literally tens of thousands of dollars in ratings, training, education and testing $19,000 a year. How about if we pay BOTH groups what they are worth, and reverse the pay scales?
3) The fact of the matter is that production takes resources. Energy is one of those resources. We WILL use energy to create economic wealth. So, we can either use what we have, we can develop new technology to replace what we have, or we can do both. However, no amount of perception game is going to change the fact that whatever we DO choose to do, if it doesn't pencil out economically, then it won't work. Hence, Obama's misfire on hydrogen was the biggest failure of energy policy in modern times, especially with his marketing angle that he was "forward looking" and wanted to build a better tomorrow. That tomorrow is largely hydrogen based and until he make progress to that end, it isn't going to work. The other technologies he has pushed simply do not have the cost to benefit ratio needed to replace oil.
I also find it ironic how he is vehemently opposed to oil, and yet when he makes changes to alleviate oil prices (many of which are EXACTLY the same as what Bush did variously in the past) he is hailed as a hero, but Bush is hailed as a villian. It shows the large disconnect from reality that many Americans have.
|
Yes, after further research into the issue, I would say I am wrong about the increase in oil production under Obama's watch (of course the economics of fracking has been a huge reason for the increase and not necessarily Bush enacted policies), but I still think re-valuing the dollar just to make oil cheaper is not a good thing.
As I said, I don't think any Administration can change the dollar value anyway, but it is Congresses actions that have the bigger impact (and just plain world economics). I am not advocating Union employment or overpaid, lazy workers, but a weaker dollar does make manufacturing in the US more competitive and makes a large impact on the economy. Why do you think China and Korea want to keep their currency weak and Japanese companies are hurting so much from the strong yen?
Also, when demand is out-stripping supply, any incremental loss in capacity or supply can have a huge impact on prices, so even though putting oil into the SPR was not a large volume, it can still have a big impact on prices. The push to fill it to the 700 million barrel limit and then increase it to 1 billion in 2005 and then he finaly signed the act to stop filling it in 2008 (finally caving in due to sky high prices). The releases were in response to the hurricanes, and the severe supply disruptions, which any president would have done.
Anyway, I am a proponent of drilling more in the US and doing what we can to increase US oil production, so I am not some left swinging tree hugging envrionmentalist.
|
Fan Koni
|
|
eneka wrote:
maybe for their regular vehicles but the ceo of the M division specifically stated NA engines aren't dead.....yet.
Among many topics being discussed, the one that stood out again is the comparison of turbocharged engines versus fans’ darlings, naturally-aspirated units. Surprisingly enough, the M boss says that “The naturally aspirated engine is not dead yet,” despite the current advantages of turbo engines in terms of efficiency and power output.
Dr. Nitschke concludes that at the moment turbocharged powerplants make more sense.
http://www.bmwblog.com/2012/08/17/bmw-m-ceo-the-naturally-aspirated-engine-is-not-dead-yet/
|
yeah well from next year on the last NA car the V8 M3 will be dropped and the new M3 will be a turbo 6.
With their trend of giving more cars an M badge with tri-turbo-diesel or turbo i6, I think it is about as likely as a M-Electro.
|
owequitit
|
|
Hondu wrote:
owequitit wrote:
Hondu wrote:
TonyE wrote:
Hondu wrote:
TonyE wrote:
notyper wrote:
....
I'm going to miss those types of engines.
SC
|
REALLY?
Meaning, are we really going to MISS those engines in North America?
OK.. before you yell at me.. what I _really_ mean is:
Are powerful NA engines really going away in North America?
See... it's all POLITICAL.
There is NO SHORTAGE of OIL.
There is NO GLOBAL WARMING.
North America has record oil reserves and we're finding more and more (yes, even in Kern County, California (*) ).
Oil prices are reflective of failed politically driven economic policies and speculators (Soros is invested heavily in oil (**) ).
So, forget the politics in Europe, they are screwed.
If the right change happens in the US come November, you are going to see a tremendous shift in energy policy.. one driven towards reality.
Meaning...
Much lower oil costs.
Much more realistic CAFE numbers
Much more realistic EPA policies.
This means, simply that the huge cost of the current absurd EPA/CAFE numbers... -unreal crap that only would make sense to some urban, bus riding, car less denizen of SF or NYC- will disappear.
Then, you will see that the cheaper cost of a clean, efficient normally aspirated engine will make sense again.
The poor germans will be hobbled by their own insane Euro bureaucrats.
Just hope that in North America we don't go that route.
(*) http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2009/11nov/calif1109.cfm...
Note that the crazy environmentalists in my state are really playing this down... Note the LA Times..."But some worry it could lead to a false sense of security."
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/24/business/fi-cal-oil24
(**) http://tammybruce.com/2010/06/obama-boss-george-soros-ready-to-profit-from-oil-disaster.html
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gadhafi-west-oilcompanies-conflict/2011/03/17/id/389809
|
So you think with Romney in office oil prices will drop? Last time a Republican was in office they were on their way to $150 a barrel and they were still putting oil in the SOR, until of course the Great Recession started. If I remember right, that last time we had "cheap" oil, a Democrat was in office. The rise in CAFE regulations began with Bush in office... (politically I am neutral/independent and Goldman Sachs controls the price of oil anyway, not anyone in the White House).
|
Oil was just around 2 bucks a gallon in 2007/2008.
The price of oil is based on the speculation where oil availability will be a couple of years hence.
An administration that is keenly moving licenses along and is effectively setting up an energy policy that uses domestic oil and natural gas resources will drive energy prices down. Please note that Romney did include Canada and Mexico into his speech.
And administration the re-values the value of the dollar will be lowering the effective price of imported oil in dollars.
Also, we've been finding lots of new oil in NA in the last eight years or so... hence you can not compare administrations prior to that. They all thought we had compatibly less oil that the Middle East... it turns out nowadays that NA has more oil reserves.
So, you can only compare Bush and Obama. Bush effectively worked with oil exploration firms.. hence our current production of oil is good. Obama, OTOH, has blocked new production at every turn, hence unless something is done very soon, domestic production will plateau and start to decline in two or three years with no reversal in sight.
|
Re-valuing the dollar would be a stupid move, and I don't think any administration can change it anyhow (not unless our deficit is reduced, which no party has the stomach to pull off and do the real changes needed). A strong dollar would really destroy manufacuring in this country, which is one of the few bright spots for the last few years. Creating a strong dollar to enable cheaper imports of oil is one of dumbest ideas I've heard in a long time.
As you say that Obama is limiting new production at every turn, yet under his watch oil production has increased to the highest it has been in years in this country. Sounds like a contradiction to me. By the way, the main reason for the limits was the BP disaster in the Gulf, which they were enacted due to political pressures to show they were doing something about the issue, which any administration probably would have done as well (be it Dem or Rep).
Bush effectively pushed the price of oil prices higher in the name of "national security" by pumping oil into the SOR reserve while prices were increasing, while Bill Clinton helped lower the price of oil by doing the exact opposite. Why would you buy high, like Bush did, unless you wanted to help your oil buddies in Texas?
So under Bush oil production went down and under Obama oil production has started going back up and continues to do so (crude oil production in this country did not start heading back on an upward trend until 2009).
|
You clearly do not understand the intricacies of the oil industry.
1) The reason oil production has increased under Obama is because of the licensing changes Bush made during his 2 terms to ease the restrictions on building new refineries and production. Nominally, prior to bush an oil company was looking at many billions and at least 1-1.5 decades to get through the EPA approval process for more production. Bush pushed at least a few new licenses through on a truncated time frame, hence they are now able to use those licenses to produce more oil. Most of the changes came from the expansion of existing refineries, because it is a lot easier than trying to build a new one.
So while it would seem like a typical "contradiction" on the surface, it is actually an increase in production that happened as a result of policy BEFORE Obama took office. And this is a perfect illustration of what happens when the average person mixes politics and economics, because they typically are not able to seperate the intricacies and complexities of a specific process and instead assume that it occurs in real time. The construction projects necessary to expand production alone would have been a 2-4 year process, which means that approval must have occurred before that time, as did planning, contracting, etc.
Sorry, but on that part, Tony is correct. Oil production is not up because of Obama (he has adamantly and publicly opposed ANY expansion of oil, while passing some nominal policies that would try to help ensure prices stay reasonable so he can get re-elected). In fact, as far as I am concerned, his energy policy has pretty much been an unmitigated failure, with a push toward plug-ins and hybrids that hasn't worked, a curtailing of hydrogen research and infrastructure (which they have recently made a 180* turn on) and a failure of his mass energy projects such as solar and wind that are really incremental perception band-aids to a much larger problem.
You may also want to do some research on the history and effectiveness of the SOR. Your assertions that Bush only added to it are incorrect. He added to it after 9/11, as any GOOD President would have because we had no idea strategically what was going to happen. Considering the region in which 9/11 originated from, not stocking some oil would have been strategic suicide, had events turned out worse than they did. But with no way of knowing, it is pretty hard to fundamentally fault that decision. However, you also didn't mention that he released oil from the SOR several times, especially during his second term.
However, it is all pretty much anecdotal, because the SOR has a very incremental effect on actual supply, and thus any changes to oil prices as a result of SOR changes are pretty much perception based, not reality based.
2)As for the part about "re-valuing" our currency, I also disagree, because as the economy recovers (assuming we can find leadership with enough brain power to allow it to do so), then the dollar will re-value itself. However, while it is nice to see manufacturing doing well, I would posit the argument that it is at a much greater expense, so while it is a bright spot, it doesn't make sense to tank the entire rest of the economy to support manufacturing. Especially since with modern technologies and recent UAW cuts, the wages gained from most manufacturing jobs are only nominally more than other industries, if at all. However, I also believe that will contribute to the strong growth of manufacturing here, even if the dollar does gain value, to a degree, because the costs of manufacturing here are no longer as wildly out of line. Manufacturers who can do business in America without paying someone an effective $35-50 bucks an hour (by the time benefits were figured in) to screw on door handles has good chances, but the reality is that the UAW put themselves into a position where they couldn't compete. The skill set didn't (and still doesn't) warrant that level of pay. Period. As long as they stay reasonable, manufacturing will be fine, but with Obama's strong arm union tactics (because he is in their back pocket), it is unlikely to remain that way. If you want an example, see the legislation that turns any non-vote automatically into a yes...
What really tweaks my ass is that we have all of these liberal groups supporting inflated wages for auto workers because they are "blue collar". We want to pay people who have no continuing education, who may or may not be dropouts $35-50 bucks an hour, but meanwhile we are perfectly fine paying pilots who have invested literally tens of thousands of dollars in ratings, training, education and testing $19,000 a year. How about if we pay BOTH groups what they are worth, and reverse the pay scales?
3) The fact of the matter is that production takes resources. Energy is one of those resources. We WILL use energy to create economic wealth. So, we can either use what we have, we can develop new technology to replace what we have, or we can do both. However, no amount of perception game is going to change the fact that whatever we DO choose to do, if it doesn't pencil out economically, then it won't work. Hence, Obama's misfire on hydrogen was the biggest failure of energy policy in modern times, especially with his marketing angle that he was "forward looking" and wanted to build a better tomorrow. That tomorrow is largely hydrogen based and until he make progress to that end, it isn't going to work. The other technologies he has pushed simply do not have the cost to benefit ratio needed to replace oil.
I also find it ironic how he is vehemently opposed to oil, and yet when he makes changes to alleviate oil prices (many of which are EXACTLY the same as what Bush did variously in the past) he is hailed as a hero, but Bush is hailed as a villian. It shows the large disconnect from reality that many Americans have.
|
Yes, after further research into the issue, I would say I am wrong about the increase in oil production under Obama's watch (of course the economics of fracking has been a huge reason for the increase and not necessarily Bush enacted policies), but I still think re-valuing the dollar just to make oil cheaper is not a good thing.
As I said, I don't think any Administration can change the dollar value anyway, but it is Congresses actions that have the bigger impact (and just plain world economics). I am not advocating Union employment or overpaid, lazy workers, but a weaker dollar does make manufacturing in the US more competitive and makes a large impact on the economy. Why do you think China and Korea want to keep their currency weak and Japanese companies are hurting so much from the strong yen?
Also, when demand is out-stripping supply, any incremental loss in capacity or supply can have a huge impact on prices, so even though putting oil into the SPR was not a large volume, it can still have a big impact on prices. The push to fill it to the 700 million barrel limit and then increase it to 1 billion in 2005 and then he finaly signed the act to stop filling it in 2008 (finally caving in due to sky high prices). The releases were in response to the hurricanes, and the severe supply disruptions, which any president would have done.
Anyway, I am a proponent of drilling more in the US and doing what we can to increase US oil production, so I am not some left swinging tree hugging envrionmentalist.
|
I was not attempting to insinuate that you were a leftist tree hugger, so if it came across that way, I appologize. That was not my intent.
However, oil shale fracking was one of the policies supported by Bush's administration as a way to increase supply without drilling. It was absolutely skewered by the left, but now they have no problem taking credit for its benefits... That was more my point than anything.
And like I said, the SOR effects were more perceptual than anything, however they don't really have a large effect on prices. It is typically on the order of $.10 a gallon or less, and it only works for a very short time, usually about a quarter at best.
Also, I do understand that the dollar is part of the reason for the manufacturing change, and I agree that at this point any growth is a good thing, I simply don't think we should resort to currency manipulation as the Koreans and Chinese are going to maintain momentum in that area, as it has a lot of other ill economic effects. I was just pointing out that the union concessions of the UAW have gone a long way toward reducing the imbalance in the manufacturing section, because regardless of the relative value of the dollar, it is hard to make money building stuff when your wages are inflated by 3-4x over what they should be. Also, I found it interesting that one of the drivers of moving manufacturing jobs back was that companies were realizing they weren't saving as much as they thought. Probably an incremental reason, but a reason nonetheless. An interesting modern version of this problem is ongoing in Seattle with Boeing's manufacturing workforce. They DEMAND better pay and wages, making it very hard for Boeing to compete against Airbus worldwide (who is tremendously subsidized by Euro governments), but then when Boeing threatens to move those jobs to more beneficial areas (such as their plant in South Carolina), the workers are in an outrage. They want outrageous pay, but they also want total job security. It is absolutely insane.
|
owequitit
|
|
owequitit wrote:
Hondu wrote:
owequitit wrote:
Hondu wrote:
TonyE wrote:
Hondu wrote:
TonyE wrote:
notyper wrote:
....
I'm going to miss those types of engines.
SC
|
REALLY?
Meaning, are we really going to MISS those engines in North America?
OK.. before you yell at me.. what I _really_ mean is:
Are powerful NA engines really going away in North America?
See... it's all POLITICAL.
There is NO SHORTAGE of OIL.
There is NO GLOBAL WARMING.
North America has record oil reserves and we're finding more and more (yes, even in Kern County, California (*) ).
Oil prices are reflective of failed politically driven economic policies and speculators (Soros is invested heavily in oil (**) ).
So, forget the politics in Europe, they are screwed.
If the right change happens in the US come November, you are going to see a tremendous shift in energy policy.. one driven towards reality.
Meaning...
Much lower oil costs.
Much more realistic CAFE numbers
Much more realistic EPA policies.
This means, simply that the huge cost of the current absurd EPA/CAFE numbers... -unreal crap that only would make sense to some urban, bus riding, car less denizen of SF or NYC- will disappear.
Then, you will see that the cheaper cost of a clean, efficient normally aspirated engine will make sense again.
The poor germans will be hobbled by their own insane Euro bureaucrats.
Just hope that in North America we don't go that route.
(*) http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2009/11nov/calif1109.cfm...
Note that the crazy environmentalists in my state are really playing this down... Note the LA Times..."But some worry it could lead to a false sense of security."
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/24/business/fi-cal-oil24
(**) http://tammybruce.com/2010/06/obama-boss-george-soros-ready-to-profit-from-oil-disaster.html
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gadhafi-west-oilcompanies-conflict/2011/03/17/id/389809
|
So you think with Romney in office oil prices will drop? Last time a Republican was in office they were on their way to $150 a barrel and they were still putting oil in the SOR, until of course the Great Recession started. If I remember right, that last time we had "cheap" oil, a Democrat was in office. The rise in CAFE regulations began with Bush in office... (politically I am neutral/independent and Goldman Sachs controls the price of oil anyway, not anyone in the White House).
|
Oil was just around 2 bucks a gallon in 2007/2008.
The price of oil is based on the speculation where oil availability will be a couple of years hence.
An administration that is keenly moving licenses along and is effectively setting up an energy policy that uses domestic oil and natural gas resources will drive energy prices down. Please note that Romney did include Canada and Mexico into his speech.
And administration the re-values the value of the dollar will be lowering the effective price of imported oil in dollars.
Also, we've been finding lots of new oil in NA in the last eight years or so... hence you can not compare administrations prior to that. They all thought we had compatibly less oil that the Middle East... it turns out nowadays that NA has more oil reserves.
So, you can only compare Bush and Obama. Bush effectively worked with oil exploration firms.. hence our current production of oil is good. Obama, OTOH, has blocked new production at every turn, hence unless something is done very soon, domestic production will plateau and start to decline in two or three years with no reversal in sight.
|
Re-valuing the dollar would be a stupid move, and I don't think any administration can change it anyhow (not unless our deficit is reduced, which no party has the stomach to pull off and do the real changes needed). A strong dollar would really destroy manufacuring in this country, which is one of the few bright spots for the last few years. Creating a strong dollar to enable cheaper imports of oil is one of dumbest ideas I've heard in a long time.
As you say that Obama is limiting new production at every turn, yet under his watch oil production has increased to the highest it has been in years in this country. Sounds like a contradiction to me. By the way, the main reason for the limits was the BP disaster in the Gulf, which they were enacted due to political pressures to show they were doing something about the issue, which any administration probably would have done as well (be it Dem or Rep).
Bush effectively pushed the price of oil prices higher in the name of "national security" by pumping oil into the SOR reserve while prices were increasing, while Bill Clinton helped lower the price of oil by doing the exact opposite. Why would you buy high, like Bush did, unless you wanted to help your oil buddies in Texas?
So under Bush oil production went down and under Obama oil production has started going back up and continues to do so (crude oil production in this country did not start heading back on an upward trend until 2009).
|
You clearly do not understand the intricacies of the oil industry.
1) The reason oil production has increased under Obama is because of the licensing changes Bush made during his 2 terms to ease the restrictions on building new refineries and production. Nominally, prior to bush an oil company was looking at many billions and at least 1-1.5 decades to get through the EPA approval process for more production. Bush pushed at least a few new licenses through on a truncated time frame, hence they are now able to use those licenses to produce more oil. Most of the changes came from the expansion of existing refineries, because it is a lot easier than trying to build a new one.
So while it would seem like a typical "contradiction" on the surface, it is actually an increase in production that happened as a result of policy BEFORE Obama took office. And this is a perfect illustration of what happens when the average person mixes politics and economics, because they typically are not able to seperate the intricacies and complexities of a specific process and instead assume that it occurs in real time. The construction projects necessary to expand production alone would have been a 2-4 year process, which means that approval must have occurred before that time, as did planning, contracting, etc.
Sorry, but on that part, Tony is correct. Oil production is not up because of Obama (he has adamantly and publicly opposed ANY expansion of oil, while passing some nominal policies that would try to help ensure prices stay reasonable so he can get re-elected). In fact, as far as I am concerned, his energy policy has pretty much been an unmitigated failure, with a push toward plug-ins and hybrids that hasn't worked, a curtailing of hydrogen research and infrastructure (which they have recently made a 180* turn on) and a failure of his mass energy projects such as solar and wind that are really incremental perception band-aids to a much larger problem.
You may also want to do some research on the history and effectiveness of the SOR. Your assertions that Bush only added to it are incorrect. He added to it after 9/11, as any GOOD President would have because we had no idea strategically what was going to happen. Considering the region in which 9/11 originated from, not stocking some oil would have been strategic suicide, had events turned out worse than they did. But with no way of knowing, it is pretty hard to fundamentally fault that decision. However, you also didn't mention that he released oil from the SOR several times, especially during his second term.
However, it is all pretty much anecdotal, because the SOR has a very incremental effect on actual supply, and thus any changes to oil prices as a result of SOR changes are pretty much perception based, not reality based.
2)As for the part about "re-valuing" our currency, I also disagree, because as the economy recovers (assuming we can find leadership with enough brain power to allow it to do so), then the dollar will re-value itself. However, while it is nice to see manufacturing doing well, I would posit the argument that it is at a much greater expense, so while it is a bright spot, it doesn't make sense to tank the entire rest of the economy to support manufacturing. Especially since with modern technologies and recent UAW cuts, the wages gained from most manufacturing jobs are only nominally more than other industries, if at all. However, I also believe that will contribute to the strong growth of manufacturing here, even if the dollar does gain value, to a degree, because the costs of manufacturing here are no longer as wildly out of line. Manufacturers who can do business in America without paying someone an effective $35-50 bucks an hour (by the time benefits were figured in) to screw on door handles has good chances, but the reality is that the UAW put themselves into a position where they couldn't compete. The skill set didn't (and still doesn't) warrant that level of pay. Period. As long as they stay reasonable, manufacturing will be fine, but with Obama's strong arm union tactics (because he is in their back pocket), it is unlikely to remain that way. If you want an example, see the legislation that turns any non-vote automatically into a yes...
What really tweaks my ass is that we have all of these liberal groups supporting inflated wages for auto workers because they are "blue collar". We want to pay people who have no continuing education, who may or may not be dropouts $35-50 bucks an hour, but meanwhile we are perfectly fine paying pilots who have invested literally tens of thousands of dollars in ratings, training, education and testing $19,000 a year. How about if we pay BOTH groups what they are worth, and reverse the pay scales?
3) The fact of the matter is that production takes resources. Energy is one of those resources. We WILL use energy to create economic wealth. So, we can either use what we have, we can develop new technology to replace what we have, or we can do both. However, no amount of perception game is going to change the fact that whatever we DO choose to do, if it doesn't pencil out economically, then it won't work. Hence, Obama's misfire on hydrogen was the biggest failure of energy policy in modern times, especially with his marketing angle that he was "forward looking" and wanted to build a better tomorrow. That tomorrow is largely hydrogen based and until he make progress to that end, it isn't going to work. The other technologies he has pushed simply do not have the cost to benefit ratio needed to replace oil.
I also find it ironic how he is vehemently opposed to oil, and yet when he makes changes to alleviate oil prices (many of which are EXACTLY the same as what Bush did variously in the past) he is hailed as a hero, but Bush is hailed as a villian. It shows the large disconnect from reality that many Americans have.
|
Yes, after further research into the issue, I would say I am wrong about the increase in oil production under Obama's watch (of course the economics of fracking has been a huge reason for the increase and not necessarily Bush enacted policies), but I still think re-valuing the dollar just to make oil cheaper is not a good thing.
As I said, I don't think any Administration can change the dollar value anyway, but it is Congresses actions that have the bigger impact (and just plain world economics). I am not advocating Union employment or overpaid, lazy workers, but a weaker dollar does make manufacturing in the US more competitive and makes a large impact on the economy. Why do you think China and Korea want to keep their currency weak and Japanese companies are hurting so much from the strong yen?
Also, when demand is out-stripping supply, any incremental loss in capacity or supply can have a huge impact on prices, so even though putting oil into the SPR was not a large volume, it can still have a big impact on prices. The push to fill it to the 700 million barrel limit and then increase it to 1 billion in 2005 and then he finaly signed the act to stop filling it in 2008 (finally caving in due to sky high prices). The releases were in response to the hurricanes, and the severe supply disruptions, which any president would have done.
Anyway, I am a proponent of drilling more in the US and doing what we can to increase US oil production, so I am not some left swinging tree hugging envrionmentalist.
|
I was not attempting to insinuate that you were a leftist tree hugger, so if it came across that way, I appologize. That was not my intent.
However, oil shale fracking was one of the policies supported by Bush's administration as a way to increase supply without drilling. It was absolutely skewered by the left, but now they have no problem taking credit for its benefits... That was more my point than anything.
And like I said, the SOR effects were more perceptual than anything, however they don't really have a large effect on prices. It is typically on the order of $.10 a gallon or less, and it only works for a very short time, usually about a quarter at best.
Also, I do understand that the dollar is part of the reason for the manufacturing change, and I agree that at this point any growth is a good thing, I simply don't think we should resort to currency manipulation as the Koreans and Chinese are going to maintain momentum in that area, as it has a lot of other ill economic effects. I was just pointing out that the union concessions of the UAW have gone a long way toward reducing the imbalance in the manufacturing section, because regardless of the relative value of the dollar, it is hard to make money building stuff when your wages are inflated by 3-4x over what they should be. Also, I found it interesting that one of the drivers of moving manufacturing jobs back was that companies were realizing they weren't saving as much as they thought. Probably an incremental reason, but a reason nonetheless. An interesting modern version of this problem is ongoing in Seattle with Boeing's manufacturing workforce. They DEMAND better pay and wages, making it very hard for Boeing to compete against Airbus worldwide (who is tremendously subsidized by Euro governments), but then when Boeing threatens to move those jobs to more beneficial areas (such as their plant in South Carolina), the workers are in an outrage. They want outrageous pay, but they also want total job security. It is absolutely insane.
|
Also, to get back on topic, I am not sure a huge change in policy would result in a change of direction, at least not for a long time.
The OEM's have now invested so much time and money into these new engines, that I think it would be a decade or more before we see a shift, and any policy change is unlikely to be long term enough for that to work. Also, I think it is unlikely that any President would put a course reversal on CAFE changes high on the agenda considering that the OEM's endorsed the changes.
I am glad to see Honda sticking to NA V6's versus turbo 4's, because IMO, they are more consistent in terms of actual MPG and they also are better, more durable engines to boot. It is really an unfortunate time for BMW enthusiasts. I have a good friend who is a BMW fiend, and he is glad that the new N20 is powerful and apparently relatively efficient, but he still doesn't want to swallow that the NA straight 6 is going away... They are in about the same position Honda enthusiasts are in lately.
|
Hondu
|
|
owequitit wrote:
owequitit wrote:
Hondu wrote:
owequitit wrote:
Hondu wrote:
TonyE wrote:
Hondu wrote:
TonyE wrote:
notyper wrote:
....
I'm going to miss those types of engines.
SC
|
REALLY?
Meaning, are we really going to MISS those engines in North America?
OK.. before you yell at me.. what I _really_ mean is:
Are powerful NA engines really going away in North America?
See... it's all POLITICAL.
There is NO SHORTAGE of OIL.
There is NO GLOBAL WARMING.
North America has record oil reserves and we're finding more and more (yes, even in Kern County, California (*) ).
Oil prices are reflective of failed politically driven economic policies and speculators (Soros is invested heavily in oil (**) ).
So, forget the politics in Europe, they are screwed.
If the right change happens in the US come November, you are going to see a tremendous shift in energy policy.. one driven towards reality.
Meaning...
Much lower oil costs.
Much more realistic CAFE numbers
Much more realistic EPA policies.
This means, simply that the huge cost of the current absurd EPA/CAFE numbers... -unreal crap that only would make sense to some urban, bus riding, car less denizen of SF or NYC- will disappear.
Then, you will see that the cheaper cost of a clean, efficient normally aspirated engine will make sense again.
The poor germans will be hobbled by their own insane Euro bureaucrats.
Just hope that in North America we don't go that route.
(*) http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2009/11nov/calif1109.cfm...
Note that the crazy environmentalists in my state are really playing this down... Note the LA Times..."But some worry it could lead to a false sense of security."
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/24/business/fi-cal-oil24
(**) http://tammybruce.com/2010/06/obama-boss-george-soros-ready-to-profit-from-oil-disaster.html
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gadhafi-west-oilcompanies-conflict/2011/03/17/id/389809
|
So you think with Romney in office oil prices will drop? Last time a Republican was in office they were on their way to $150 a barrel and they were still putting oil in the SOR, until of course the Great Recession started. If I remember right, that last time we had "cheap" oil, a Democrat was in office. The rise in CAFE regulations began with Bush in office... (politically I am neutral/independent and Goldman Sachs controls the price of oil anyway, not anyone in the White House).
|
Oil was just around 2 bucks a gallon in 2007/2008.
The price of oil is based on the speculation where oil availability will be a couple of years hence.
An administration that is keenly moving licenses along and is effectively setting up an energy policy that uses domestic oil and natural gas resources will drive energy prices down. Please note that Romney did include Canada and Mexico into his speech.
And administration the re-values the value of the dollar will be lowering the effective price of imported oil in dollars.
Also, we've been finding lots of new oil in NA in the last eight years or so... hence you can not compare administrations prior to that. They all thought we had compatibly less oil that the Middle East... it turns out nowadays that NA has more oil reserves.
So, you can only compare Bush and Obama. Bush effectively worked with oil exploration firms.. hence our current production of oil is good. Obama, OTOH, has blocked new production at every turn, hence unless something is done very soon, domestic production will plateau and start to decline in two or three years with no reversal in sight.
|
Re-valuing the dollar would be a stupid move, and I don't think any administration can change it anyhow (not unless our deficit is reduced, which no party has the stomach to pull off and do the real changes needed). A strong dollar would really destroy manufacuring in this country, which is one of the few bright spots for the last few years. Creating a strong dollar to enable cheaper imports of oil is one of dumbest ideas I've heard in a long time.
As you say that Obama is limiting new production at every turn, yet under his watch oil production has increased to the highest it has been in years in this country. Sounds like a contradiction to me. By the way, the main reason for the limits was the BP disaster in the Gulf, which they were enacted due to political pressures to show they were doing something about the issue, which any administration probably would have done as well (be it Dem or Rep).
Bush effectively pushed the price of oil prices higher in the name of "national security" by pumping oil into the SOR reserve while prices were increasing, while Bill Clinton helped lower the price of oil by doing the exact opposite. Why would you buy high, like Bush did, unless you wanted to help your oil buddies in Texas?
So under Bush oil production went down and under Obama oil production has started going back up and continues to do so (crude oil production in this country did not start heading back on an upward trend until 2009).
|
You clearly do not understand the intricacies of the oil industry.
1) The reason oil production has increased under Obama is because of the licensing changes Bush made during his 2 terms to ease the restrictions on building new refineries and production. Nominally, prior to bush an oil company was looking at many billions and at least 1-1.5 decades to get through the EPA approval process for more production. Bush pushed at least a few new licenses through on a truncated time frame, hence they are now able to use those licenses to produce more oil. Most of the changes came from the expansion of existing refineries, because it is a lot easier than trying to build a new one.
So while it would seem like a typical "contradiction" on the surface, it is actually an increase in production that happened as a result of policy BEFORE Obama took office. And this is a perfect illustration of what happens when the average person mixes politics and economics, because they typically are not able to seperate the intricacies and complexities of a specific process and instead assume that it occurs in real time. The construction projects necessary to expand production alone would have been a 2-4 year process, which means that approval must have occurred before that time, as did planning, contracting, etc.
Sorry, but on that part, Tony is correct. Oil production is not up because of Obama (he has adamantly and publicly opposed ANY expansion of oil, while passing some nominal policies that would try to help ensure prices stay reasonable so he can get re-elected). In fact, as far as I am concerned, his energy policy has pretty much been an unmitigated failure, with a push toward plug-ins and hybrids that hasn't worked, a curtailing of hydrogen research and infrastructure (which they have recently made a 180* turn on) and a failure of his mass energy projects such as solar and wind that are really incremental perception band-aids to a much larger problem.
You may also want to do some research on the history and effectiveness of the SOR. Your assertions that Bush only added to it are incorrect. He added to it after 9/11, as any GOOD President would have because we had no idea strategically what was going to happen. Considering the region in which 9/11 originated from, not stocking some oil would have been strategic suicide, had events turned out worse than they did. But with no way of knowing, it is pretty hard to fundamentally fault that decision. However, you also didn't mention that he released oil from the SOR several times, especially during his second term.
However, it is all pretty much anecdotal, because the SOR has a very incremental effect on actual supply, and thus any changes to oil prices as a result of SOR changes are pretty much perception based, not reality based.
2)As for the part about "re-valuing" our currency, I also disagree, because as the economy recovers (assuming we can find leadership with enough brain power to allow it to do so), then the dollar will re-value itself. However, while it is nice to see manufacturing doing well, I would posit the argument that it is at a much greater expense, so while it is a bright spot, it doesn't make sense to tank the entire rest of the economy to support manufacturing. Especially since with modern technologies and recent UAW cuts, the wages gained from most manufacturing jobs are only nominally more than other industries, if at all. However, I also believe that will contribute to the strong growth of manufacturing here, even if the dollar does gain value, to a degree, because the costs of manufacturing here are no longer as wildly out of line. Manufacturers who can do business in America without paying someone an effective $35-50 bucks an hour (by the time benefits were figured in) to screw on door handles has good chances, but the reality is that the UAW put themselves into a position where they couldn't compete. The skill set didn't (and still doesn't) warrant that level of pay. Period. As long as they stay reasonable, manufacturing will be fine, but with Obama's strong arm union tactics (because he is in their back pocket), it is unlikely to remain that way. If you want an example, see the legislation that turns any non-vote automatically into a yes...
What really tweaks my ass is that we have all of these liberal groups supporting inflated wages for auto workers because they are "blue collar". We want to pay people who have no continuing education, who may or may not be dropouts $35-50 bucks an hour, but meanwhile we are perfectly fine paying pilots who have invested literally tens of thousands of dollars in ratings, training, education and testing $19,000 a year. How about if we pay BOTH groups what they are worth, and reverse the pay scales?
3) The fact of the matter is that production takes resources. Energy is one of those resources. We WILL use energy to create economic wealth. So, we can either use what we have, we can develop new technology to replace what we have, or we can do both. However, no amount of perception game is going to change the fact that whatever we DO choose to do, if it doesn't pencil out economically, then it won't work. Hence, Obama's misfire on hydrogen was the biggest failure of energy policy in modern times, especially with his marketing angle that he was "forward looking" and wanted to build a better tomorrow. That tomorrow is largely hydrogen based and until he make progress to that end, it isn't going to work. The other technologies he has pushed simply do not have the cost to benefit ratio needed to replace oil.
I also find it ironic how he is vehemently opposed to oil, and yet when he makes changes to alleviate oil prices (many of which are EXACTLY the same as what Bush did variously in the past) he is hailed as a hero, but Bush is hailed as a villian. It shows the large disconnect from reality that many Americans have.
|
Yes, after further research into the issue, I would say I am wrong about the increase in oil production under Obama's watch (of course the economics of fracking has been a huge reason for the increase and not necessarily Bush enacted policies), but I still think re-valuing the dollar just to make oil cheaper is not a good thing.
As I said, I don't think any Administration can change the dollar value anyway, but it is Congresses actions that have the bigger impact (and just plain world economics). I am not advocating Union employment or overpaid, lazy workers, but a weaker dollar does make manufacturing in the US more competitive and makes a large impact on the economy. Why do you think China and Korea want to keep their currency weak and Japanese companies are hurting so much from the strong yen?
Also, when demand is out-stripping supply, any incremental loss in capacity or supply can have a huge impact on prices, so even though putting oil into the SPR was not a large volume, it can still have a big impact on prices. The push to fill it to the 700 million barrel limit and then increase it to 1 billion in 2005 and then he finaly signed the act to stop filling it in 2008 (finally caving in due to sky high prices). The releases were in response to the hurricanes, and the severe supply disruptions, which any president would have done.
Anyway, I am a proponent of drilling more in the US and doing what we can to increase US oil production, so I am not some left swinging tree hugging envrionmentalist.
|
I was not attempting to insinuate that you were a leftist tree hugger, so if it came across that way, I appologize. That was not my intent.
However, oil shale fracking was one of the policies supported by Bush's administration as a way to increase supply without drilling. It was absolutely skewered by the left, but now they have no problem taking credit for its benefits... That was more my point than anything.
And like I said, the SOR effects were more perceptual than anything, however they don't really have a large effect on prices. It is typically on the order of $.10 a gallon or less, and it only works for a very short time, usually about a quarter at best.
Also, I do understand that the dollar is part of the reason for the manufacturing change, and I agree that at this point any growth is a good thing, I simply don't think we should resort to currency manipulation as the Koreans and Chinese are going to maintain momentum in that area, as it has a lot of other ill economic effects. I was just pointing out that the union concessions of the UAW have gone a long way toward reducing the imbalance in the manufacturing section, because regardless of the relative value of the dollar, it is hard to make money building stuff when your wages are inflated by 3-4x over what they should be. Also, I found it interesting that one of the drivers of moving manufacturing jobs back was that companies were realizing they weren't saving as much as they thought. Probably an incremental reason, but a reason nonetheless. An interesting modern version of this problem is ongoing in Seattle with Boeing's manufacturing workforce. They DEMAND better pay and wages, making it very hard for Boeing to compete against Airbus worldwide (who is tremendously subsidized by Euro governments), but then when Boeing threatens to move those jobs to more beneficial areas (such as their plant in South Carolina), the workers are in an outrage. They want outrageous pay, but they also want total job security. It is absolutely insane.
|
Also, to get back on topic, I am not sure a huge change in policy would result in a change of direction, at least not for a long time.
The OEM's have now invested so much time and money into these new engines, that I think it would be a decade or more before we see a shift, and any policy change is unlikely to be long term enough for that to work. Also, I think it is unlikely that any President would put a course reversal on CAFE changes high on the agenda considering that the OEM's endorsed the changes.
I am glad to see Honda sticking to NA V6's versus turbo 4's, because IMO, they are more consistent in terms of actual MPG and they also are better, more durable engines to boot. It is really an unfortunate time for BMW enthusiasts. I have a good friend who is a BMW fiend, and he is glad that the new N20 is powerful and apparently relatively efficient, but he still doesn't want to swallow that the NA straight 6 is going away... They are in about the same position Honda enthusiasts are in lately.
|
Yes, back on topic. I was considering buying a new BMW 1-series and if I do, I would make sure it was the NA I6. I know there have been a lot of improvements made with TC's, but I like the sound and feel of the NA engine better (not to mention better reliability). I hope Honda sticks with NA and doesn't switch over.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
