[Chihuahua]

Originally Posted by Wolfinwolfsclothing

Porsche is only making 918 of them, BMW will likely sell thousands and thousands of i8s (5,000? 10,000?), so the costs will be spread over many more cars.

Agree 100%, which I think is what BMW was go with the i8; advanced hybrid technology in a high performance chassis at a price point that is accessible to people who aren't multi-millionaires.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Petros

for an alleged finance professional you sure don't seem to know much at all. how the fuck will gas become less expensive? economies like china, india, brazil, etc are only gonna get bigger and bigger. the global population is increasing and along with it more and more cars are on the road. that means demand for oil will keep increasing. meanwhile supplies are limited. most of the clean easy to get oil is almost done. much of out future oil supply will come from tar sands and other sources that are more expensive to exploit. oil prices will only keep going up, unless we wean ourselves off oil and use alternative energy sources, and drive those hybrid and electric cars you hate so much.

then again maybe oil supplies are infinite, and all this stuff about oil being a nonrenewable resource is just a big conspiracy by those lefty socialist pinko europeans to increase taxes and force us to drive around in slow electric golf karts instead.

Because when Obama closed the federal lands he locked up 32% of the world's WORLD'S oil reserves. When these reopen prices will drop dramatically which will also greatly impact the world economy too.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Kyle B

True, but you're talking about cars with MSRPs of $845K, $1.15M, and $3.2M. The i8 hovers around M6 pricing, which of course is infinitely more accessible than the three cars you referenced.

I think the i8 is a huge win.

Those are a different class of car and a different price bracket. I think it's silly to compare and a silly car.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Meeni

100,000+ world scientists, from 100 different countries, funded through 100 governments, thousands of private corporations, scientists, the same people that brought to you hippie's favorites like the nuclear power plant and the genetically modified crops. All part of a conspiration in which nobody wins money, but it's because they are -all- crypto communists. Yep. Makes sense. Not crazy. Had your pills today?

That was all based on the old computer geek models with purposefully fake numbers. Those numbers have since been debunked and the actual data is slapping them in the face. Othe t countries are also going along with it as a way to leverage money and wealth away from the US. So yes it makes sense. It's an economic and anticapitalistic weapon.

[Chihuahua]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Those are a different class of car and a different price bracket. I think it's silly to compare and a silly car.

That was the point I was making.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Kyle B

That was the point I was making.

But my point is it doesn't perform like those so it's not doing what you said. It's just a fancy expensive Prius. Who cares about the crappy hybrid tech. Who wants to spend six figures on a sports car with no sport?

[Wolfinwolfsclothing]

Originally Posted by Kyle B

Agree 100%, which I think is what BMW was go with the i8; advanced hybrid technology in a high performance chassis at a price point that is accessible to people who aren't multi-millionaires.

I agree, but at the same time, the tech, the chasis, the motor are all far more advanced and more expensive in the 918 than anything BMW has put into the i8 so that helps BMW in keeping price down. Plus outright performance, BMW wont be in the realm of the 918 likely ever in a stock production car.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Because when Obama closed the federal lands he locked up 32% of the world's WORLD'S oil reserves. When these reopen prices will drop dramatically which will also greatly impact the world economy too.

This is off topic but can you provide a reputable source for that?

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

But my point is it doesn't perform like those so it's not doing what you said. It's just a fancy expensive Prius. Who cares about the crappy hybrid tech. Who wants to spend six figures on a sports car with no sport?

You're just dancing around in circles now. You yourself defined a sports car over $100k as needing to go 0-60 in under 4 seconds. I've proven that it does (3.8 seconds).

Yet here you are just spitting out nonsense. At this point it's pretty clear that you're just trolling, disguising a BMW thread as a forum to spout your ridiculous political views.

This should be moved to the Politics section.

[Chihuahua]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

But my point is it doesn't perform like those so it's not doing what you said. It's just a fancy expensive Prius. Who cares about the crappy hybrid tech. Who wants to spend six figures on a sports car with no sport?

The only thing I claimed the i8 would do was cost about as much as an M6. I'm totally lost on your comment. Go back to arguing about global warming.

Originally Posted by Wolfinwolfsclothing

I agree, but at the same time, the tech, the chasis, the motor are all far more advanced and more expensive in the 918 than anything BMW has put into the i8 so that helps BMW in keeping price down. Plus outright performance, BMW wont be in the realm of the 918 likely ever in a stock production car.

Nope, the BMW is not even close. Performance level, and price, are much lower.

[SmallTownBoy]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

This is off topic but can you provide a reputable source for that?

+1 for taking this to off topic/politics, but in the meantime...

U.S. oil and natural gas production has soared during the Obama administration, at an almost exponential rate. 2.72 Million barrels last year, a level not seen since 1991. Obama's got the oil tap gushing at full, not the reverse.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/Lea...s=mcrfpus1&f=a

Let's hear Funnyguy's "supply/demand" explanation for that. Or shall we just google the Fox News site for the answer?

[Billup]

I think the i8 is a great idea, for one, but other than it's looks, I don't think it really offers anything that I would really want. I mean, hell, for the cost, I can think of at least 20 other cars I would much rather have in my stable.

[Fundguy1]

Im sure its out there. Heres a start. Hard to do this stuff at 85 mph. Lol
As for going in circles I refuted your 3.8 number by saying I wasnot a production car tested and bmw's official 0-60 test was 4.5 seconds which sucks.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrispra...federal-lands/

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by SmallTownBoy

+1 for taking this to off topic/politics, but in the meantime...

U.S. oil and natural gas production has soared during the Obama administration, at an almost exponential rate. 2.72 Million barrels last year, a level not seen since 1991. Obama's got the oil tap gushing at full, not the reverse.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/Lea...s=mcrfpus1&f=a

Let's hear Funnyguy's "supply/demand" explanation for that. Or shall we just google the Fox News site for the answer?

OMG so dumb. Ok. I will try to explain it to your pea brains. Gas was cheap before Obama because easily obtained oil reserves on federal land was available. With prices so low it didn't make econom sense to get more gas out of the us ground. When he shut this cheap supply off prices rose worldwide. These higher prices made shale and fracking economically viable. Without him closing federal lands to oil production, there wouldn't be these high prices or fracking. With oil over $80 a barrell, us and Canadian oil production on private lands skyrocketed. Couple this with the middle east supplying less and Asia using more our total production increased. However if they were to free up y he federal stuff, fracking, tar sands, etc. Would become to expensive and stop production as well as the huge increase in oil would drop prices dramatically.

[Fundguy1]

Think about it gas prices were in the $1-2 a gallon range from the mid 80s to 2009. Can anyone tell me what else changed to cause them to double? In one year? I'd especially love to hear when the left was blaming bush for a short term raise in prices just a few years earlier when it didn't even get to 3$ nationally. But he was able to bring it back down to $ 1.65 when Obama took office. Bueller?

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Im sure its out there. Heres a start. Hard to do this stuff at 85 mph. Lol
As for going in circles I refuted your 3.8 number by saying I wasnot a production car tested and bmw's official 0-60 test was 4.5 seconds which sucks.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrispra...federal-lands/

Lol you do realize those manufacturer times are just rough estimates right, they don't time 0-60 runs to publish them? Because, surely, no car critic or actual owner has NEVER been able to get consistently better 0-60 times than what the manufacturer estimates.

Hell, BMW estimates the 335i would do 0-60 in 5.0 seconds. We can all say, with confidence, that it's very easy to rip high 4 second 0-60 runs in these things. Continue back-peddling though, it is amusing what BS excuses to feed your misplaced bias.

As for your source and reading the original report, nothing in it supports your claim that he locked up 32% of the world's oil reserves. First of all, in context of the study and your Forbes article, Federal land is defined as being owned by the Federal government, non-Federal land is defined as being owned by state governments or by private entities within the United States.

So the article states the following:

Oil production on federal lands actually fell 6 percent between 2009 and 2013.

And with regards to natural gas:

Natural gas production on federal lands decreased by an astounding 28 percent from 2009 to 2013

However, if you read the entire context of the quip about oil production, you'll read (emphasis mine):

According to the CRS report, oil production on federal lands actually fell 6 percent between 2009 and 2013. Over the same period of time, oil production increased by an astounding 61 percent on state and private lands. The decrease in federal production is not insubstantial but requires context in the form of state and private production numbers. As a result of these massive gains, crude oil production on state and private lands has risen by 2.1 million barrels per day. That increase alone is more than Algeria, Libya, Qatar, and Norway produce– all countries with storied oil reputations – and explains why the U.S. is on track to be the world’s largest oil producer.

And with natural gas production (emphasis mine):

Natural gas production on federal lands decreased by an astounding 28 percent from 2009 to 2013 while natural gas production on non-federal lands increased by 33 percent from 2009 to 2013.

NOTHING in that article indicates that Obama "shut down" 32% of the world's oil reserves. The only thing that article and study quantifies is how oil and natural gas production on Federal land has decreased but is offset by production on privately owned land within the US. Unfortunate for those states with a ton of oil sitting on Federal land but nothing in there substantiates your claim that the current administration has shut off 32% of the world's oil reserves nor does any of it indicate any inclination that these actions have lead to an increase in gas prices, the article and accompanying study would suggest actually the opposite.

So I'll ask again, where did you get the notion that:

Obama closed the federal lands he locked up 32% of the world's WORLD'S oil reserves. When these reopen prices will drop dramatically which will also greatly impact the world economy too.

The source and study you posted actually contradict what you're ultimately claiming. Guess they didn't teach you 3rd grade reading comprehension skills while getting your alleged Ivy League education. While it's true that gas production on Federal land has decreased (oil only 6%, so no where close to the magical 33% number you're floating around), it was more than offset by increases in production on privately owned land within the United States. Thus resulting, in aggregate, in an increase in production.

International F30 Bimmerpost members, please know that not all of us Americans are this brain dead.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Think about it gas prices were in the $1-2 a gallon range from the mid 80s to 2009. Can anyone tell me what else changed to cause them to double? In one year? I'd especially love to hear when the left was blaming bush for a short term raise in prices just a few years earlier when it didn't even get to 3$ nationally. But he was able to bring it back down to $ 1.65 when Obama took office. Bueller?

For starters, you're trying to suggest that Presidents have heavy influence on global crude oil prices. Bush never caused gas prices to increase or decrease anymore than Obama has.

At one point under Bush's Presidency, gas did hit record highs however that was not his fault. This was due to crude oil being traded at record high rates among oil speculators all over the world, it was a bubble at the time since speculators saw it as a good hedge against inflation. As we can all recall, that bubble burst and crude oil prices on a per barrel basis and therefore, gas prices fell dramatically, this also happened while Bush was in office.

Speculators thought it was a good hedge against inflation due to increased demand for oil in places like India and China.

I don't know what's more sad, the nonsense drivel you spout, or the fact that some people actually believe you.

[Fundguy1]

You are correct on oil production and natural gas production falling on federal lands. But your context is wrong. Oil production of federal oil production dropped, which was a much larger slice of total us oil production than private production was of us production. And effectively gulf oil production was ceased which isn't included.

Again, I challenge you to explain why then if oil prices were relatively stable for 30 years why at precisely when Obama took office did they double and remain so since? Did every Chinese and Indian buy a 2008 model car? Was there a sudden upswing doubling in permanent world oil use that year? Was that the year everyone decided terrorism was a threat to oil production? Are speculators still speculating? And I don't see any stock 335i s going 4.0 sec quarters either. Maybe with heavy mods and tunes.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

You are correct on oil production and natural gas production falling on federal lands. But your context is wrong. Oil production of federal oil production dropped, which was a much larger slice of total us oil production than private production was of us production. And effectively gulf oil production was ceased which isn't included.

Again, that Forbes article completely contradicts that:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/site...eral-areas.pdf

Page 5 shows that total US production has increased from 5.2M barrels per day in 2009 to 7.2M barrels per day in 2013 and there were marginal increases every year between 2009 and 2013. The table shows that the decrease in Federal land production was more than offset by the increase in privately owned land production increases.

Again, I challenge you to explain why then if oil prices were relatively stable for 30 years why at precisely when Obama took office did they double and remain so since? Did every Chinese and Indian buy a 2008 model car? Was there a sudden upswing doubling in permanent world oil use that year? Was that the year everyone decided terrorism was a threat to oil production? Are speculators still speculating? And I don't see any stock 335i s going 4.0 sec quarters either. Maybe with heavy mods and tunes.

That is quite a challenge considering that claim is also false:


Eight year snapshot:


That sharp rise in 2008 followed by the sharp fall is the aforementioned speculator bubble bursting that I mentioned for context.

By all means though, if it's all the same to you I'd like you to keep grasping at this misplaced view you have.

As for your last comment on 0-60 times, I never said they can do it in 4.0 seconds, I said that BMW estimates they can go 0-60 in 5.0 seconds, although actual timed runs show it does it around 4.5-4.7 seconds.

I like you, not often where you come across someone who is categorically wrong about virtually everything and who engages in such entertaining straw man tactics.

[SmallTownBoy]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

OMG so dumb. Ok. I will try to explain it to your pea brains. Gas was cheap before Obama because easily obtained oil reserves on federal land was available. With prices so low it didn't make econom sense to get more gas out of the us ground. When he shut this cheap supply off prices rose worldwide. These higher prices made shale and fracking economically viable. Without him closing federal lands to oil production, there wouldn't be these high prices or fracking. With oil over $80 a barrell, us and Canadian oil production on private lands skyrocketed. Couple this with the middle east supplying less and Asia using more our total production increased. However if they were to free up y he federal stuff, fracking, tar sands, etc. Would become to expensive and stop production as well as the huge increase in oil would drop prices dramatically.

More hyperbolic prattle, and selective prattle at that. Let's consider a few facts:

1. Average gas price was at or over US$3/gal in '07 and hit US$4/gal in '08, before Obama was elected.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/Lea...TE_NUS_DPG&f=W


2. Crude oil production from US federal lands actually increased marginally in FY 2013, and remains marginally higher than during the Bush administration. Longer term, federal lands onshore crude production actually increased by 33% from FY 2003 to FY 2013. Overall, (incl. offshore), federal crude production is down about 11% since 2003, but that reduction occurred between '04 and '06, and remained relatively steady during the W years.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...76180860,d.aWw


3. Obama opened up new offshore oil drilling lands in 2010, breaking an explicit campaign promise to the contrary. This despite Exxon and BP taking a dump on our collective front lawn.

4. You haven't mentioned panic buying and hoarding in Asia and Europe.

5. You haven't mentioned the speculation by commodities futures traders, betting on Middle East unrest to affect supplies and inventories, thereby creating a price bubble.

6. You haven't mentioned both the regular (seasonal) and unplanned (hurricanes) closure of refining capacity affecting supply of gasoline, as opposed to the supply of crude.

Your theory about Obama's responsibility for high gas prices is easily refuted. Now you've deflected by reference to market forces that no US President can readily affect, nor would any free market proponent wish. [/fishinabarrel].

[SmallTownBoy]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

You are correct on oil production and natural gas production falling on federal lands. But your context is wrong. Oil production of federal oil production dropped, which was a much larger slice of total us oil production than private production was of us production.
...
Again, I challenge you to explain why then if oil prices were relatively stable for 30 years why at precisely when Obama took office did they double and remain so since?

Complete baloney.

Here's the facts, from the pdf I linked in point 2 above:

Millions of barrels of crude production from US federal lands by year and as a % of total US production:

2006 - 572 Million barrels making 31.3% of the total.
2007 - 618 Million barrels making 33.3%
2008 - 565 Million barrels making 30.7%
2009 - 647 Million barrels making 33.9%
2010 - 722 Million barrels making 36.4%

In the first two years of Obama's term, crude production from federal lands increased dramatically. The increase in oil prices has nothing to do with the fictitious claim that Obama reduced production from federal lands.

[Chihuahua]

A reminder that this thread was started to discuss the i8.

How unfortunate that EVERYTHING has to be politicized in this day and age. What a shame.