Survivalist Forum banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Grumpy Old Curmudgeon
Joined
·
341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Oilfield Math

Working in the oilfield with others such as myself and a wealth of combined experience we understand the accuracy of the following.

Think of it this way:

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


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


So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will 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, the government paid $3 Billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.


We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved.



I'm pretty sure they will do a great job with our health care, though.
 

·
SB's Token Commie
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
Similar math/outcome, in survival terms

1 bullet=1 possible meal, you have a decent supply, your neighbor is running short due to different economic conditions. His economic factors include bandits raiding his farm, and he has to expend additional rounds to defend what is his.

Do you:
A) Expend ammunition to help your neighbor, reducing your supply, but increase your security 3 fold (Your farm isn't subject to raids by now dead bandits, your neighbor "owes you", and your neighbor also is less likely to become desperate enough to raid you himself)

Or B) Allow your neighbor to fold, and expose your farm now to a stronger raider from your neighbors possessions enhancing that bandits resources, or your neighbor manages to survive on his own, but now holds emnity toward you in perpetuity and is now a lifetime risk on your border.

From either the Socialist view, or an enlightened cooperation viewpoint, it's better to help your neighbor, because the risk assessment shows a far bigger gain both materially or in more nontangible manners, like goodwill.

Back to the oil scenario and cars listed above: The less tangible benefit is the older cars are off the road, the newer cars are on the road, overflowing inventory that wasn't being sold, is now, and our auto industry got the double benefit of not collapsing, and reducing existing inventory. What's the real downside with all this? Which has a greater risk to the national economy? A little deficit that can be paid down or loss of remaining heavy industrial capacity in the middle of a horrible recession?
 

·
Grumpy Old Curmudgeon
Joined
·
341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Since we are in a DEPRESSION, and since government spending is the cause, and since all those new cars were mostly IMPORTS.........

I'd say it's still a BUST.

We need less government intrusion in business, not more government "programs".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,200 Posts
Your math is impeccable except I would multiple that one year estimate by the number of years the clunkers would still be on the road. Cash for clunkers was about spending money not saving anything. It was an auto industry bailout, scored points with their green wing, a direct bribe of 700,000 consumers with a government gift, a brazen display of YES WE CAN marxist flavored intervention. All in all on the scale of usual federal waste it was a winner. Using any other flavor of mathematics and economics it doesn't make sense.
 

·
Gravity is a Theory.
Joined
·
3,211 Posts
I was under the impression cash for clunkers was about getting polluting cars off the streets and not as much to do with oil consumption?

I would like to see some air pollution numbers like this.

I agree it was an auto industry big government scheme.
 

·
Tree-hugger amongst you
Joined
·
313 Posts
I was under the impression cash for clunkers was about getting polluting cars off the streets and not as much to do with oil consumption?

I would like to see some air pollution numbers like this.
I'm a rabid environmentalist and still thought it was only about auto-industry payola payout scheming.

The added environmental cost of those new cars being built with new materials and energy must be factored into any environmental justification equations on this subject.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
If you also include the amount of oil used in the production of 700,000 vehicles and then add that to the cost, you realize even more how bad cash for clunkers was.

Oilfield Math

Working in the oilfield with others such as myself and a wealth of combined experience we understand the accuracy of the following.

Think of it this way:

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


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


So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will 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, the government paid $3 Billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.


We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved.



I'm pretty sure they will do a great job with our health care, though.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top