Energy Cost, Etc... Split from Annual Numbers

Per said:

i know i am late to the party but thats how it is..
slip: $6K
Insurance: $1200
Diver/zincs: $1000
Maintenance and upkeep - improvements: average $4000/year

hours and fuel is all depending how much time you use.
i dont think we run the boat more than apprx 100 hrs/year but we spend much more time aboard.

as a side note, if you have to turn over each dime then you probably cannot afford a boat.
best advise i ever got was somone here who said dont spend your money on additional gadgets and stuff you dont really need, spend it on fuel and go enjoy boating.

Click to expand...

I just got through taking all the boats i have been looking at and figureing out the amount of hours used per year and it comes out to 77. I sold a boat to a guy once with less than 100 hours on it and we became friends. After that he would kid me about the fact of 100 hours and i was on the water at least three days a week. Well the fact is i would go out, anchor and fish for a few minutes or maybe a whole day so the engine time was in fact low. I have been looking at 30 plus year old trawlers and they all seem to have 2500 average hours which seems ridiculous for a vessel that old. But in reality that is just normal hours. So, 100 hours times $5 per gallon 2 gallon per hour $500 per year for fuel??? Thats gotta be one of any boat owners smallest expenses

bfloyd4445 said:

I just got through taking all the boats i have been looking at and figureing out the amount of hours used per year and it comes out to 77. I sold a boat to a guy once with less than 100 hours on it and we became friends. After that he would kid me about the fact of 100 hours and i was on the water at least three days a week. Well the fact is i would go out, anchor and fish for a few minutes or maybe a whole day so the engine time was in fact low. I have been looking at 30 plus year old trawlers and they all seem to have 2500 average hours which seems ridiculous for a vessel that old. But in reality that is just normal hours. So, 100 hours times $5 per gallon 2 gallon per hour $500 per year for fuel??? Thats gotta be one of any boat owners smallest expenses

Click to expand...

First of all 100 hours at 2 gallons per hour is 200 gallons...times $5 would be $1000.

Some of us use our boats closer to 400 hours so times 2 gallons per hour is 800 gallons times $5 per gallon is $4000. That would be my biggest single expense for the year except transient docking which I can adjust from near nothing to $12000 if I stay every night for my 4 month winter cruise.

psneeld said:

[/COLOR]

First of all 100 hours at 2 gallons per hour is 200 gallons...times $5 would be $1000.

Some of us use our boats closer to 400 hours so times 2 gallons per hour is 800 gallons times $5 per gallon is $4000. That would be my biggest single expense for the year except transient docking which I can adjust from near nothing to $12000 if I stay every night for my 4 month winter cruise.

Click to expand...

opps, sorry for the miscalculation there. Its obvious you really use your boat much more than most. I don't think i have ever hit 400 hours in a year but have come close. Then there are other years when i am buried in work and i use them not at all so it averages out.

bfloyd4445 said:

opps, sorry for the miscalculation there. Its obvious you really use your boat much more than most. I don't think i have ever hit 400 hours in a year but have come close. Then there are other years when i am buried in work and i use them not at all so it averages out.

Click to expand...

The point is, was and always will be that as fuel prices rise....the cruisers fuel budget is an important number...especially for those that are doing it on a low, fixed or nearly so budget.

psneeld said:

The point is, was and always will be that as fuel prices rise....the cruisers fuel budget is an important number...especially for those that are doing it on a low, fixed or nearly so budget.

Click to expand...

yeah i be one of those fixed or nearly so at the moment.

Fuel for your car will rise if you stay home. Food and clothing will rise. Taxes will rise. Last evening I had the pleasure of donating $2.17 to the state of South Carolina for the privilege of spending $25.00 on a computer part.

Point being that with the current state of affairs in the USA, if you are on a fixed income, you can expect your standard of living to go down whether you are cruising or staying home.

If you want to cruise, you better do it soon while diesel fuel is still "only" $5.00 per gallon.

rwidman said:

Fuel for your car will rise if you stay home. Food and clothing will rise. Taxes will rise. Last evening I had the pleasure of donating $2.17 to the state of South Carolina for the privilege of spending $25.00 on a computer part.

Point being that with the current state of affairs in the USA, if you are on a fixed income, you can expect your standard of living to go down whether you are cruising or staying home.

If you want to cruise, you better do it soon while diesel fuel is still "only" $5.00 per gallon.

Click to expand...

Ron, you didn't directly mention the most insidious tax of all----inflation. With the government holding down interest rates to finance the horrendous national debt, and and increasing prices with slow growth of investments the fixed income people are really caught in a squeeze.

Moonstruck said:

Ron, you didn't directly mention the most insidious tax of all----inflation. With the government holding down interest rates to finance the horrendous national debt, and and increasing prices with slow growth of investments the fixed income people are really caught in a squeeze.

Click to expand...

I didn't call it out by name, but that's what it is when the prices of everything rise.

rwidman said:

If you want to cruise, you better do it soon while diesel fuel is still "only" $5.00 per gallon.

Click to expand...

Fuel prices tend to inflate, boat prices tend to deflate.
I`m seeing news items suggesting USA will return to oil self sufficiency as shale oil extraction improves and expands now the price of oil is high enough to justify producing oil that way. Alternative energy forms, like natural gas (LPG), wind power,solar, should help too.
Is that right, about shale oil,and would that contain pricing?

Well, right now the Dakotas, particularly North (I think) Dakota is having a gold rush of oil exploration and production. The sons of two of my co- workers have moved there and are apparently making more money than they know what to do with. Whether all this ends up having an effect on fuel prices at the pump remains to be seen.

Personally I don't think it will because the prices are set by the market. The demand for oil is skyrocketing all over the world. I don't believe there is any law that says American oil can't be sold to China or India or Viet Nam. I see tankers leaving the refineries here in Puget Sound full as well as tankers arriving full. And some of these outbound full tankers are flying the red field/gold stars flag of the PRC.

So not only is Shell competing with Chevron and BP, but America is competing with China and Japan and Vietnam for the fuel and crude produced here. So the oil companies can sell their product here, of if they get a better price from Beijing, they can sell it there. Which means our pump prices won't change much.

They will go down if the demand for the product in the US goes down but I don't think this has as much influence as it used to because if we reduce our demand for fuel the Chinese will be increasing theirs. So the overall demand for the product won't fluctuate much.

Now if the US puts protectionist policies in place governing the sale of American oil as they did way back when they required Alaska crude to be shipped in American ships, then that could have a more dramatic impact on pump prices.

But I would be surprised to see this happen because the world is so interconnected now that a protectionist policy with regards to oil exports could have a very nasty repercussion that could hurt us just as much as our refusal to export oil could hurt other countries.

Oil seems to be one of the few commodities we export. Still not enough to offset our trade imbalance. A while back I had a friend wringing his hands about all the lumber we export from the PNW. He was complaining that we should keep our natural resources in our own country. I couldn't convince him that that lumber is a renewable resource and we're making money and creating private sector jobs at the same time.

Ray Muldrew

BruceK said:

Fuel prices tend to inflate, boat prices tend to deflate.
I`m seeing news items suggesting USA will return to oil self sufficiency as shale oil extraction improves and expands now the price of oil is high enough to justify producing oil that way. Alternative energy forms, like natural gas (LPG), wind power,solar, should help too.
Is that right, about shale oil,and would that contain pricing?

Click to expand...

chuckle...we use 7,000,000 barrels aday in the USA. current oil shale is less than 100,000 per day so we have a long way to go. The total amount used is about 22% of the world total we use 2.555e9 barrels per year. That aint pocket change and the USA is only one country
U.S. Product Supplied for Crude Oil and Petroleum Products

Giggitoni said:

Oil seems to be one of the few commodities we export. Still not enough to offset our trade imbalance. A while back I had a friend wringing his hands about all the lumber we export from the PNW. He was complaining that we should keep our natural resources in our own country. I couldn't convince him that that lumber is a renewable resource and we're making money and creating private sector jobs at the same time.

Ray Muldrew

Click to expand...

he was right. instead of exporting the wood you shouild only export the finished product. Instead of selling logs sell them plywood, osb, and other finished wood products. I thought Canada did that?

You obviously don't have a realistic handle on business or the world economy and trade for us to have a meaningful discussion. Have a good one!

Ray Muldrew

Giggitoni said:

You obviously don't have a realistic handle on business or the world economy and trade for us to have a meaningful discussion. Have a good one!

Ray Muldrew

Click to expand...

So you think its better to export raw timber than to export finished wood products? You obviously have never looked at the economics of Canada or the USA. Where do you live, in China?

I'll just share one thought in the form of a question...and let's use China as an example. Why would China buy a finished product from us and pay all of our built-in cost we have added through the last few decades; union wages, insurance, government regulation, etc., when they can manufacture the product themselves at a fraction of the cost?

Ray Muldrew

Giggitoni said:

I'll just share one thought in the form of a question...and let's use China as an example. Why would China buy a finished product from us and pay all of our built-in cost we have added through the last few decades; union wages, insurance, government regulation, etc., when they can manufacture the product themselves at a fraction of the cost?

Click to expand...

Followed by a further question...how long will the Chinese people be willing to work for slave labour wages for a "government" who deems them expendable? There's gonna be a day they rise up...

Australia used to have a big steel industry, now it`s a small one.
Iron ore and coal are plentiful. But our labor costs make value adding uneconomic. We export the iron ore and coal to China, they turn it into steel, we buy it back cheaper than we can make it. It would make economic sense if we could value add by making steel here but no one would buy it,here or overseas, because it would cost too much.Same for timber out of Canada.
Oh,and we get to blame China for polluting the world by burning the coal we sell them. ("Really? I`d no idea they would burn that coal we sell them. How amazing!")

Giggitoni said:

Oil seems to be one of the few commodities we export. ....................

Click to expand...

So why all this talk about reducing our dependency on impoted oil? I think your statement needs some backup.

Regardless of who, what, why, and where, the price of diesel fuel and what used to be called "gasoline" is rising and in the long run it's rising faster than the rate of inflation. The current administration in the USA is fine with that, they want us all taking public transportation or driving electric vehicles (where that electricity comes from is an entirely new thread).

My point being, if you have tha "lifetime cruise" in mind, the one that covers a few thousand miles, you better not put it off, you may not be able to afford it in a few years.

BruceK said:

Fuel prices tend to inflate, boat prices tend to deflate.

Click to expand...

Prices for new boats are not deflating, they are inflating because of the increased cost of labor and materials and government regulation.

The price of used boats may be deflating because of the general economy and increased fuel prices. People can't afford to keep and use their boats.

Giggitoni said:

I'll just share one thought in the form of a question...and let's use China as an example. Why would China buy a finished product from us and pay all of our built-in cost we have added through the last few decades; union wages, insurance, government regulation, etc., when they can manufacture the product themselves at a fraction of the cost?

Click to expand...

They won't and they don't.

union wages, insurance, government regulation

Click to expand...

That's it in a nutshell and until our government realizes that, things will continue to go down hill. And as long as our citizens expect the government to support them, things won't change.

rwidman said:

That's it in a nutshell and until our government realizes that, things will continue to go down hill. And as long as our citizens expect the government to support them, things won't change.

Click to expand...

Until our blue collar workers are willing to live like Chinese serfs things won't change.

People in our nation have struggled for over 200 years to get out of the low skill, manual labor economy. We succeeded. But we neglected to prepare for the next phase, a knowledge and information economy. I don't think we should be blaming our problems on our success. - Success as defined as living wages, safe working conditions, health care, quality of life, etc. That's what we have been working to achieve. We got there. - Our mistake was thinking our success would last forever and we haven't prepared for the changing current and future economies.

Greetings,
Mr. Lurker. You raise an interesting point. I think part of the "problem" is low skill/manual labor jobs are frowned upon in the US and felt to be beneath most if not all of those people willing to work. The drive to "get an education" and the ensuing sense of entitlement has created a workforce that will NOT harvest crops, sweep streets or dig ditches. A knowledge and information based economy is all well and good but SOMEONE has to do the inappropriately labeled and vilified "menial" work.
Not everyone can be an IT executive or CEO but it seems in the US everyone wants to and wallow in the bling.

BaltimoreLurker said:

Until our blue collar workers are willing to live like Chinese serfs things won't change.

People in our nation have struggled for over 200 years to get out of the low skill, manual labor economy. We succeeded. But we neglected to prepare for the next phase, a knowledge and information economy. I don't think we should be blaming our problems on our success. - Success as defined as living wages, safe working conditions, health care, quality of life, etc. That's what we have been working to achieve.

Click to expand...

Spoken like a union organizer!

Don't get me wrong, there was a time when labor unions were relevant. Unions got laws passed against child labor, limiting employer's ability to take advantage of workers, requiring paid overtime, etc., but at some point, they started killing our economy by making products more costly than they were worth. That when China and Mexico came into the picture with cheaper products.

The "living wages" comment is a phrase well worn by labor unions and one political party. The bottom line is, you can't be paid more than your labor is worth and have your employer remain in business. There is a reason people who make pizzas aren't paid as much as doctors. A doctor's time and education is worth more than the ability to spread sauce and cheese on a piece of dough and put it in the oven.

The US government has decided to provide food, shelter, and health care to those who choose not to put forth the effort to educate themselves so they can be productive citizens or who won't put forth the effort to work in jobs equal to their skills. These people vote to continue this system.

The Native Americans and the settlers who settled this country had no welfare system, you worked or you starved. It was a pretty good system.

RT Firefly said:

............ The drive to "get an education" and the ensuing sense of entitlement has created a workforce that will NOT harvest crops, sweep streets or dig ditches. ...........

Click to expand...

Stop having the government provide food and shelter for these people and they would harvest crops, sweep streets, or starve to death.

Give them the choice, see what happens.

That's 'kinda my point. Chinese serf wages and working conditions are what that sort of skill (or lack of skill) set gets these days. If our citizens didn't have a social safety net they'd either starve or work under those conditions and be not a whole lot better off than starving.

We have for the most part worked our way out of that tedious, mindless, manual labor business. It took a long while to get there, but when the change happened, it happened fast. Along the way we forgot, or never understood, the consequences of where we were headed. We're a victim of our own success, we worked ourselves out of a job ... or however you want to phrase it. But I think it does not advance our cause to look backwards, point fingers at and vilify the citizens who got left behind for one reason or another. I think we'd all be better off if we could agree on a path forward. Obviously, no one has discovered that path yet. But demonizing 47% of the population as lazy, no-good slackers isn't going to help.

I didn't spend a lifetime in the service like a lot of folks on this Forum. But I did learn one thing. If your people fail it's often leadership's fault. You didn't prepare your people properly or you put them in a position they weren't prepared to handle. I'm not suggesting that 100% of the population will ever be achievers. You have to discard the true scum. But I think those types of people represent considerably less of our population than the Right Wingers claim.

BaltimoreLurker said:

That's 'kinda my point. Chinese serf wages and working conditions are what that sort of skill (or lack of skill) set gets these days. If our citizens didn't have a social safety net they'd either starve or work under those conditions and be not a whole lot better off than starving..

Click to expand...

And that's the incentive my parents used many years ago to convince me to get a decent education in a field where I could earn a decent living.

Those who choose to not pay attention in school, those who choose to drop out or run from job to job because work is too hard or it interferes with their partying should be the ones picking crops and digging ditches.

A friend of mine came from a very poor family. He put himself through college and law school by playing music at nigh and is now a sucessfull attorney. That was back in the days before all the government handouts. That's back in the days when if the government paid for your school lunch, everyone knew it and you were ashamed and didn't want to put this burden on your own children.

Greetings,
Mr. rwidman. I see your point perfectly but MY point is the US benchmark is to get a college education and if you don't, you're second class and a failure. People who work at the blue collar level are IMHO looked down upon. Why were the kids who got gov't lunches ashamed? Because their peers made them feel so. Through no fault of their own they were failures.
"Go to college" is hammered into young peoples minds as the be all and end all. A college graduate will NOT work in a factory or on a construction job or as a trash collecter because it is beneath his educational level. Not everyone should go to college. The trades are begging for workers. Do you think a college grad would ever consider being a plumber or an electrician? I think not. So if a young person, for whatever reason either drops out of school or doesn't pursue post secondary education he's a failure. How much of an incentive or encouragement does he have to better himself? Not much. So he/she becomes a burden on society soon to be firmly ensconced in the govt' handout racket.

rwidman said:

And that's the incentive my parents used many years ago to convince me to get a decent education in a field where I could earn a decent living.

Click to expand...

Sounds like we came from similar beginnings. I've been working non-stop since I was 14, sometimes 2 jobs at a time. Payed my own way through college and went to grad school at night on the company ticket. Even with all that, until I was in my late 40's I was still underwater. Then I got a couple lucky breaks and started to get ahead of the game, finally. But without that element of luck I'd still be sucking wind.

I know; luck is where preparation meets opportunity. And I sure as heck prepared.

Man, what a mess we're in. At least a generation to fix, if we get smart and start now. I need a drink! Signing off for the day.

RT Firefly said:

Greetings,
Mr. rwidman. I see your point perfectly but MY point is the US benchmark is to get a college education and if you don't, you're second class and a failure. People who work at the blue collar level are IMHO looked down upon. Why were the kids who got gov't lunches ashamed? Because their peers made them feel so. Through no fault of their own they were failures.
"Go to college" is hammered into young peoples minds as the be all and end all. A college graduate will NOT work in a factory or on a construction job or as a trash collecter because it is beneath his educational level. Not everyone should go to college. The trades are begging for workers. Do you think a college grad would ever consider being a plumber or an electrician? I think not. So if a young person, for whatever reason either drops out of school or doesn't pursue post secondary education he's a failure. How much of an incentive or encouragement does he have to better himself? Not much. So he/she becomes a burden on society soon to be firmly ensconced in the govt' handout racket.

Click to expand...

I understand your point because I worked in a large public school system. The educators would rate their various schools by the percentage of graduates who went on to college.

Still, that college graduate would work in a factory or as a plumber if the choice was work there or starve to death. In the 1930s, men worked building dams, cabins, roads, whatever, for a dollar or two a day to feed their families because that was the only way to keep from starving.

Today, in the USA, those same men are standing on the street corners or playing video games while their "baby mommas" are fed, clothed, and supplied free healthcare by the government. In a very real sense, I am supporting their families.