.

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

25 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Well it wouldn't be hard to produce a battery truck with panels on the roof and sides, and have the sides on hinges like the "gull-wing" doors on some sports cars. Not saying they would be suitable in Europe, but certainly in the Middle East. Heck, you could even use them to make green H2 in places where there is plenty water? Again, not saying the whole fleet has to run on renewables, but maybe up to half would be advantageous.

Extremely impractical in almost all areas of conflict. DIESEL DIESEL DIESEL !!!! For the foreseeable future. That'll be at least 50 yrs out. In this diagram it states that the F-35A (1 gallon of JP-8 = 6.7lb) burns about 4000lb of fuel per hour, cruising at Mach 0.75 and 40,000ft (which according to Wolfram Alpha is about 430 knots TAS). 18500lb / 4000lb/hr = 4.625 hours. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

2 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Extremely impractical in almost all areas of conflict. DIESEL DIESEL DIESEL !!!! For the foreseeable future. That'll be at least 50 yrs out. In this diagram it states that the F-35A (1 gallon of JP-8 = 6.7lb) burns about 4000lb of fuel per hour, cruising at Mach 0.75 and 40,000ft (which according to Wolfram Alpha is about 430 knots TAS). 18500lb / 4000lb/hr = 4.625 hours. 

Never said you could easily replace diesel in tanks or kerosene in jet fighters. Was just talking Hummers and Army trucks. But you raise a good question, what happens when the oil runs out in 50 years time? If I were the Pentagon, I would want the SPR quadrupled in size. Heck, I would want a limit on fracking of 150 rigs. I would be pushing the US govt to conserve as much oil as possible and give everyone a free electric vehicle. At least the Europeans and the Chinks have seen the writing on the wall. Oil is far too precious to waste IMHO. If we can cut oil consumption by 50% over the next 20 years, then we buy ourselves a whole century to adapt. We will probably need it.

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

4 minutes ago, Wombat said:

But you raise a good question, what happens when the oil runs out in 50 years time?

You think we are going to run out of crude oil in 50 years? I'll be long dead but my bet is oil is being magically found all over the world we never dreamed of looking. Many many hectares of ocean haven't even been searched, just the shallower easy to get waters. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

4 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

You think we are going to run out of crude oil in 50 years? I'll be long dead but my bet is oil is being magically found all over the world we never dreamed of looking. Many many hectares of ocean haven't even been searched, just the shallower easy to get waters. 

100mb/d = 34 billion barrels/year that we consume. I don't think we will discover anything like that amount over the next 50 years. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

7 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

18 minutes ago, Wombat said:

But you raise a good question, what happens when the oil runs out in 50 years time?

You think we are going to run out of crude oil in 50 years? I'll be long dead but my bet is oil is being magically found all over the world we never dreamed of looking. Many many hectares of ocean haven't even been searched, just the shallower easy to get waters. 

Classic question/veiled threat of the Left's rhetoric: Don't you worry about what's going to happen after you are dead and gone (and conveniently cannot disprove them)?  They also cannot prove their own claims so rely only on accusations without merit and an attempt to shame you into their twisted way of thinking.  I'm surprised that Wombat not only utilizes such tactics, if they can be called that, but I am more surprised that he falls for it.

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

1 minute ago, Wombat said:

100mb/d = 34 billion barrels/year that we consume. I don't think we will discover anything like that amount over the next 50 years. 

You are supposing 100mbd/where in fact as electric vehicles in the next 10 years halve that figure. Right now with Covid we are only consuming 70mbd. The more people need not commute the less crude is being used so as an ex oil rig employee with 6 yrs experience give or take few months, I can assure you the worlds oil supply is not in danger of running out in 50 years. Can you picture what even 50 million barrels is or container to hold said amount?? I will give you a clue, alot of towns of 10k have tanks for water up in the air for pressure, those are 1 million gallons on the average size, some smaller but those are being replaced to the bigger 1 million gallon to 1.5 million gallons. A barrel of oil is 42 gallons. Now try putting that into perspective please. 

[Bob D + 562]

56 minutes ago, Wombat said:

100mb/d = 34 billion barrels/year that we consume. I don't think we will discover anything like that amount over the next 50 years. 

On one hand we have Jay telling us 100% EV Fleet by 2035 and the other we have Wombat telling us we have to meet today's oil demand for the next 50 years.  You guys should talk!

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

8 minutes ago, Bob D said:

On one hand we have Jay telling us 100% EV Fleet by 2035 and the other we have Wombat telling us we have to meet today's oil demand for the next 50 years.  You guys should talk!

Where is Jay?  He seems to have given up the ghost these days.

[Rob Kramer + 696]

1 hour ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

You are supposing 100mbd/where in fact as electric vehicles in the next 10 years halve that figure. Right now with Covid we are only consuming 70mbd. The more people need not commute the less crude is being used so as an ex oil rig employee with 6 yrs experience give or take few months, I can assure you the worlds oil supply is not in danger of running out in 50 years. Can you picture what even 50 million barrels is or container to hold said amount?? I will give you a clue, alot of towns of 10k have tanks for water up in the air for pressure, those are 1 million gallons on the average size, some smaller but those are being replaced to the bigger 1 million gallon to 1.5 million gallons. A barrel of oil is 42 gallons. Now try putting that into perspective please. 

93ish million barrels/d going to 96 in q4 (some doubt) but far above the 70 you say. If it is 70 all global oil wells must be shale for inventories to be correcting. Not that it changes your argument. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

1 hour ago, Dan Warnick said:

Classic question/veiled threat of the Left's rhetoric: Don't you worry about what's going to happen after you are dead and gone (and conveniently cannot disprove them)?  They also cannot prove their own claims so rely only on accusations without merit and an attempt to shame you into their twisted way of thinking.  I'm surprised that Wombat not only utilizes such tactics, if they can be called that, but I am more surprised that he falls for it.

Crikey Dan, where is the oil industry gonna get the cash to do E&P as EV's take greater market share? I am expecting volatility in the price of oil for the next two decades. It is just a question of which countries give up on oil production first. The boom/bust cycle is only going to get more intense IMHO but as demand gradually starts to fall, who the heck is going to want to invest? I am sick and tired of losing money on oil companies. Even the LNG industry is massively over-supplied and the competition is set to get worse, not better. I don't expect to be around in 50 years either, maybe 20 if I am lucky, but I guarantee that will be more than long enough to see the oil industry go the way of the coal industry. I am no Leftie, but I am an environmentalist and a realist. Sure, road transport is only 50% of oil consumption, and I don't see the petro-chemicals industry disappearing in a hurry, but when you add the coming H2 economy to EV's, then as I say, who the heck is gonna invest in oil?

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Dan Warnick said:

Where is Jay?  He seems to have given up the ghost these days.

@Jay McKinsey might have found a site where they take his every utterance as gospel instead of this rough and tumble place where he's obligated to back them up with evidence.  

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

@Jay McKinsey might have found a site where they take his every utterance as gospel instead of this rough and tumble place where he's obligated to back them up with evidence.  

Maybe he got hired as Kar-mala Harris-Biden ticket's green czar advisor!!!!!!

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

Some day, God willing and the creek don't rise, this made-in-china pandemic will be over. About a dozen vaccines are ready to hit all at once. If you get the thing and are old and get sick, there will be synthetic antibodies like the president received. 

If you hadn't noticed, people have taken to doing weird things during their zoom calls. Humans are herd animals; they need to talk and smile and watch each others facial expressions in person. They will need new hair-dryers, which are plastic, and last I heard weren't being made from lithium or hydrogen. They will drive cars, most of which are still ICE. They will fly and take cruises.  

The renewables are wonderful, just marvelous. To get enough lithium for a Tesla battery you have to gouge about 8 tons of earth, send skinny little boys down holes to retrieve cobalt, smelter nickel with an incredible SOX effluent. To make a windmill requires massive amounts of petroleum, tons of cement which emits CO2, and then they fatigue and fall apart. Solar panels are better, but not much--especially when they go through a Texas hail storm the size of baseballs. Sounds wonderful. 

This isn't one or the other--nature's finest or nature's evil fossils of the past. It's a bit of both. Then, eventually, renewables will very likely take over a good bit of energy and fossil fuels will be used for petrochemical plants. And don't' forget, unless we've already exceeded the # of humans that can exist on Mother Earth, we will still need fossil fuels for electricity, the growth energy of the brave new world. 

The reason they call this a boom or bust industry is because it does just that. We are coming out of an incredible bust. BP, Eni, Shell, Total are all switching to renewables: buying wind farms, solar companies, battery companies, contracting with the city of London for charging stations. Those are four giant companies--bye boys, don't let the door hit you in the ass--and their leaving opens up great opportunity for Chevron and Exxon. They will very likely . . . hold your breath now . . . boom! 

It won't be just another cycle--the pandemic saw to that. But anyone who thinks that all of OPEC is going to go broke and join Israel, who is developing the Leviathan Field--maybe the biggest gas field in the world--and there's not going to be a war, well, you're not much of a student of oil and gas or warring society, either one. ISIS is targeting KSA. Iran is targeting KSA. Nobody likes KSA. I don't like KSA. 

Furthermore, don't be too surprised if, despite the polls, Mr. Trump wins reelection. I think he has just about had it with the Saudis. He has certainly had it with China, and Iran, and probably is pretty irritated that they're doing deals like there's no sanction and no virus. I really wouldn't want to be in President Xi's chair if Mr. Trump gets reelected. Anyway, I don't think oil and gas is dead. I'm really sorry to learn that some of you don't plan on sticking around for the next fifty years--we're going to miss you, just like Mr. McKinsey.

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

8 hours ago, ceo_energemsier said:

Maybe he got hired as Kar-mala Harris-Biden ticket's green czar advisor!!!!!!

Might have taken offense to me calling him a moron?? but if the shoe fits 🙂

[Bob D + 562]

10 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

@Jay McKinsey might have found a site where they take his every utterance as gospel instead of this rough and tumble place where he's obligated to back them up with evidence.  

He found a web site that relishes a 'hockey stick' chart for all things green

[0R0 + 6,251]

17 hours ago, Wombat said:

18 hours ago, Wombat said:

Nope. The US trade deficit with China has widened during the pandemic, in spite of the trade war:

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/521640-why-did-the-us-trade-deficit-sharply-deteriorate-during-the-pandemic

The Chinese are still swimming in USD. 

PS: At $40/bbl, and imports of 8 mb/d, that works out to just $117 billion/annum. China spends more than that on Australian commodities such as iron ore, coal, LNG, bauxite, copper, and gold.

The particulars of the current trade components are not the point. It is a long term issue as China's market share in its fields of formerly sole sourced exports is dwindling into the future. To overcome China's problem of unproductive industries, China has come to treat its domestic inputs as having no value. E.g. to maintain Al exports, it has provided Al smelters with free electricity so they can operate at a breakeven/profit at a price 40% below market. Losses get rolled over into further debt in the banks for both Al and electric utilities. The behavior is indicating that despite record US trade deficits, their need for dollar revenue has increased rather than decreased. Their current reluctance to spend on food imports in the face of the extensive Yangtze floods killing off a season's harvests is indicative of the same constraints. 

Exports to other markets have not fared as well as exports to the US.

As to what it is that is eating the dollar cash flows for China it is likely continued capital flight, and debt service by property developers that supply the bulk of Chinese provincial government revenue and thus central govt revenue by bidding for land.Growing vacancy rates are reducing sales prices below costs in what used to be the hottest real estate markets after Tier 2 and 3 cities were already at 30% vacancies and some are at ghost city status for a decade.

The ability of China inc. to generate an internal profit seems to have evaporated despite the sharp drop in commodities that has made US unit industrial gross margins rise.

The Chinese stock market is following the Dent correlation with the secondary peak of the middle age demographic now seeing its last inflow growth peaking before the bulk of boomers retire in a couple of years.

Contrary to Monday's published GDP growth of 4.7%, The actual number would be a shrink of 4% of GDP. The trick to obtain the growth number was a revision of their historic numbers for 2018 and 2019 by swapping Fixed Asset Investment (FAI) from the Sep. month to the Oct. month Thus they turned a 9.5% drop to a 1% rise. Which translates to producing the positive GDP growth figure. China Beige Book shows retail sales down 10% y/y so netting the rise in the trade surplus gets you a -4% GDP growth or worse.

The fact that hardly anyone in the financial press are paying attention to the obvious fudging of the numbers is troubling. That China is so desperate to inflate its official number to do something that crude, though not surprising, is indicating desperation to attract capital into China.

Xi's government is apparently being hacked by his predecessors from the downtrodden reform camp who are dumping the CCP's blackmail materials against US political and business elite to the press and political organizations including Trump's. Essentially putting flags on Xi and his power base's asset holdings in the US and Europe etc.. Removing their "plan B" survival path.

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

17 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

And don't' forget, unless we've already exceeded the # of humans that can exist on Mother Earth, we will still need fossil fuels for electricity, the growth energy of the brave new world. 

 

Furthermore, don't be too surprised if, despite the polls, Mr. Trump wins reelection. I think he has just about had it with the Saudis. He has certainly had it with China, and Iran, and probably is pretty irritated that they're doing deals like there's no sanction and no virus. I really wouldn't want to be in President Xi's chair if Mr. Trump gets reelected. Anyway, I don't think oil and gas is dead. I'm really sorry to learn that some of you don't plan on sticking around for the next fifty years--we're going to miss you, just like Mr. McKinsey.

You are correct, without atmospheric nitrogen fixation, which runs off fossil fuels, the population would have been naturally capped long ago.

 

I think China and Russia want trump to be reelected.

 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

1 minute ago, Enthalpic said:

You are correct, without atmospheric nitrogen fixation, which runs off fossil fuels, the population would have been naturally capped long ago.

 

I think China and Russia want trump to be reelected.

 

I completely disagree, the Chinese Commie Party and the Russkies want -Karma-la Crapis/Cryin-lyin Biden to win:

1) Their policies are close to their (commie-socialist) hearts

2) The Trumpster has more sanctions on Russia (including on the Russian oil and gas sector)

3) Trade tariffs against China under The Trumpster

The Chinese have had to spend more buying US goods and also US energy products

 

With a Karma-la Crapis/Cryin-lyin Biden win, all those go away and the two countries policies will go unchallenged globally.

 

 

 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

2 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

I completely disagree, the Chinese Commie Party and the Russkies want -Karma-la Crapis/Cryin-lyin Biden to win:

1) Their policies are close to their (commie-socialist) hearts

2) The Trumpster has more sanctions on Russia (including on the Russian oil and gas sector)

3) Trade tariffs against China under The Trumpster

The Chinese have had to spend more buying US goods and also US energy products

 

With a Karma-la Crapis/Cryin-lyin Biden win, all those go away and the two countries policies will go unchallenged globally.

 

 

 

The Greed New Deal will transfer trillions of $$ to China!!!!

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 10/20/2020 at 8:53 AM, Old-Ruffneck said:

Hummers get approx. 10mpg on pavement roads as my friend has one. In a battle situation locked in 4X4 low range I would assume 4-5 mpg if even that. Don't think for a minute the battery pack on a Hummer would sustain an hour of hard use in sand, mountains in all wheel drive mode under pressure. The "pack" would add a couple tons for any distance and longer fighting periods. Diesel will still be the choice in the 15-20 year range. The less wiring the better the vehicle will perform. My brothers Duece and a Half burns everything petro accept aviation gasoline of 115 octane. Multi-Fuel engine. And there are still alot of them in the armed forces for the simple reason you can drain a blown up vehicles motor oil and burn it as fuel. 

I personally don't think in a large scale war we'll be relying on battery powered vehicles. Too much weight added for an extra hour or two in the field? Plus a direct hit on the batteries is far more toxic than diesel. Common sense dictates a tank would go 200 yards with 10 tons of batteries and then be a sitting duck while waiting for a charge?? Diesel baby!!!  Tho electric motors do provide more torque and can boogie a quarter mile effing fast as hell with road gears !!!

I am guessing that the gas tank of a Hummer is about 35 gallons? That gives it a range of 350 miles, same as the electric version:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/gm-rolls-out-electric-hummer-as-battery-powered-pickups-gain-traction-01603242559?mod=mw_latestnews

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

5 hours ago, Wombat said:

I am guessing that the gas tank of a Hummer is about 35 gallons? That gives it a range of 350 miles, same as the electric version:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/gm-rolls-out-electric-hummer-as-battery-powered-pickups-gain-traction-01603242559?mod=mw_latestnews

The Link you sent is not a military machine with tons of armor plating. It's a fancy unit for civilians. You can fill a diesel Hummer in few minutes in the field, what will the battery alternative take? "Time is money" but in battle conditions "Time is Lives" and I don't think the military will rely on "in the field" electric Hummers. Just my opinion.

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

16 hours ago, ceo_energemsier said:

With a Karma-la Crapis/Cryin-lyin Biden win, all those go away and the two countries policies will go unchallenged globally.

Agreed CEO

Selfishly I'm hoping for a Trump re-election, USA will be an ally to the UK if he gets back in. If the Demoncrats get in that aint happening!

[0R0 + 6,251]

On 10/19/2020 at 8:27 PM, Wombat said:

Never said you could easily replace diesel in tanks or kerosene in jet fighters. Was just talking Hummers and Army trucks. But you raise a good question, what happens when the oil runs out in 50 years time? If I were the Pentagon, I would want the SPR quadrupled in size. Heck, I would want a limit on fracking of 150 rigs. I would be pushing the US govt to conserve as much oil as possible and give everyone a free electric vehicle. At least the Europeans and the Chinks have seen the writing on the wall. Oil is far too precious to waste IMHO. If we can cut oil consumption by 50% over the next 20 years, then we buy ourselves a whole century to adapt. We will probably need it.

We are going to reduce oil consumption by transition to NG for shipping and commercial transport. Shifting petrochemical feed to NG as well. That is 1/2 of oil consumption knocked down within the decade. Remote work is going to shift down commuting oil consumption, not really as much of a big deal. EVs will get to take market share over the decade as battery costs fall.

Unfortunately for the greens, copper production is limiting how fast the green electric grid and EVs can be built. Li production is also a pinch point, as are the many component elements going into EVs and solar. iridium being a particular problem in Li processing.

There is no need for policy to drive the transition. Oil is expensive while NG is both more than 10 times more plentiful, and costs 1/3 down to 1/5th as much as oil. It also has the benefit of using infrastructure that is usable for solar electrogas if that process'; efficiency reaches similar improvements as has solar PV. Renewable synthetic NG from electrochemical H2 is another way to use existing infrastructure and combustion equipment rather than H2 vehicles.

 

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 10/20/2020 at 10:49 AM, Dan Warnick said:

Classic question/veiled threat of the Left's rhetoric: Don't you worry about what's going to happen after you are dead and gone (and conveniently cannot disprove them)?  They also cannot prove their own claims so rely only on accusations without merit and an attempt to shame you into their twisted way of thinking.  I'm surprised that Wombat not only utilizes such tactics, if they can be called that, but I am more surprised that he falls for it.

All I can say is: 

 

[Wombat + 1,028]

2 minutes ago, Wombat said:

 

 

joe_dolce_shaddap_you_face[1]