.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Readers may note that I have put this clown "Enthalpic" on Block so that I do not have to read his baiting crap.  I invite the readership here to follow suit, the Moderator seemingly refuses to deal with him. So, ignore the fellow. 

Long ago.

[Richard Snyder + 70]

3 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

 

I don't fit your biases.

Keep saying covid will be gone soon and trump will win... it makes these guys like you!  Use graphs, it adds the illusion of veracity to your guesses.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

 

 

Again, shear "Penis Envy".

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

15 minutes ago, Richard Snyder said:

Again, shear "Penis Envy".

 

Weak.

Like I have anything to be envious of.  I live better.

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,246]

9 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

 

Weak.

Like I have anything to be envious of.  I live better.

For 3,177 posts and a community reputation of +1,324 votes says worlds of your posts. Personally I find you amusing in posts in a not so good way. But hey, free speech is still the right way and everyone is entitled to opinions even if they don't "jive" with mine. Personal attacks as you seem to do alot of is okay by me too...... I also can type derogatory remarks but restraint of pen and tongue is the better way.

Edited October 16, 2020 by Old-Ruffneck

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

11 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

For 3,177 posts and a community reputation of +1,324 votes says worlds of your posts. Personally I find you amusing in posts in a not so good way. But hey, free speech is still the right way and everyone is entitled to opinions even if they don't "jive" with mine. Personal attacks as you seem to do alot of is okay by me too...... I also can type derogatory remarks but restraint of pen and tongue is the better way.

Obviously, I won't get as many upvotes as the trump fan club.  I don't care.  Unlike some here, my self-esteem is not based on internet forum "credentials."

Popularity is a very poor measure of quality.  Enjoy your Kardashians with a tall can of Bug light.

As for derogatory remarks I take far more than I give.

 

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,246]

17 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Enjoy your Kardashians with a tall can of Bug light.

Not sure what a Kardashian's is but as far as Bud light I no drink alcohol.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Not sure what a Kardashian's is but as far as Bud light I no drink alcohol.

It's just very popular crap on tv.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_Up_with_the_Kardashians

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,246]

3 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_Up_with_the_Kardashians

Well there ya have it, crap is probably correct term. I don't watch tv so..... not missing much obviously. 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

4 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Well there ya have it, crap is probably correct term. I don't watch tv so..... not missing much obviously. 

CRAPTASHIANS!!!!!!!!! what most of the country watches? mindless junk, no wonder the mindless state of a lot of people in the country!!!

When people are being told how to vote in exchange for naked Hollyweirders pics!!!!

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 10/15/2020 at 10:11 PM, 0R0 said:

Civility is another issue.

I would say maybe a bigger issue. I can find many qoutes from your founding fathers supporting this. It seems to me that "moderate" posters such as myself are either forced to stoop to a low level to get heard or just leave. 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

On 10/16/2020 at 8:02 PM, ceo_energemsier said:

CRAPTASHIANS!!!!!!!!! what most of the country watches? mindless junk, no wonder the mindless state of a lot of people in the country!!!

When people are being told how to vote in exchange for naked Hollyweirders pics!!!!

Funny I was talking about them with my wife. Came up because I was calling Hollywood Liberal trash and she was saying she only knows Kim Kardashian who would vote trump because Kanye West .... I went on to say all of Hollywood has/ is the top 1% with 99% of the cash (or whatever that disproportionate stat is) . And IF Hollywood was actually liberal and socialist why arnt they spreading the love (money). But the funny story is how one of the Kardashians was "blasted" for "flaunting their money too much" apparently showing pictures of your Bentley or Bugatti or whatever it was is just too much ... but not pics of 40k$ nail jobs over a Ferrari steering wheel.  People who buy this stuff are messed up. These people (the 1%) should be paying the 99% to do what they want them to do, not tell them what they should do and be taking their money.... makes you wonder how people cant see this. 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

54 minutes ago, Rob Kramer said:

Funny I was talking about them with my wife. Came up because I was calling Hollywood Liberal trash and she was saying she only knows Kim Kardashian who would vote trump because Kanye West .... I went on to say all of Hollywood has/ is the top 1% with 99% of the cash (or whatever that disproportionate stat is) . And IF Hollywood was actually liberal and socialist why arnt they spreading the love (money). But the funny story is how one of the Kardashians was "blasted" for "flaunting their money too much" apparently showing pictures of your Bentley or Bugatti or whatever it was is just too much ... but not pics of 40k$ nail jobs over a Ferrari steering wheel.  People who buy this stuff are messed up. These people (the 1%) should be paying the 99% to do what they want them to do, not tell them what they should do and be taking their money.... makes you wonder how people cant see this. 

Apparently, she got famous because of some "sex tape" but she is a hypocrite as you can see from this story. She was @ the WH to get her name out there but now is putting it down. Hollyweird is absolute hypocrites. I say , well if you want abortions then, every liberal should be given a free abortion for their first born and last born!!! and no second amendment rights for you, and you cant hire private security with any kind of guns, give them sticks and batons! and no petroleum based fuels and products.

 

 

https://news.yahoo.com/kim-kardashian-david-letterman-talktrump-voting-oj-simpson-robbery-180446306.html

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Notice that the rioters didn't make much headway in Hollywood.  The Green National Guard trucks and equipment were welcomed into town to prevent that. 

Notice all the battery powered army trucks, the guns made of hemp and the solar powered generators?

[Wombat + 1,028]

Back to the topic for a minute:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Oil-Majors-Stuck-Between-A-Rock-And-A-Hard-Place.html

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Big-Banks-Could-Lose-Billions-In-The-Global-Energy-Transition.html

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/How-Long-Will-China-Continue-To-Prop-Up-The-Oil-Market.html

[Wombat + 1,028]

4 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Notice that the rioters didn't make much headway in Hollywood.  The Green National Guard trucks and equipment were welcomed into town to prevent that. 

Notice all the battery powered army trucks, the guns made of hemp and the solar powered generators?

Arnold Schwazenneger has had a H2 powered Hummer for 15 years. Sure, H2 costs $10/gallon in California but you can bet that will change over the next 10 years.

[Wombat + 1,028]

Just now, Wombat said:

Arnold Schwazenneger has had a H2 powered Hummer for 15 years. Sure, H2 costs $10/gallon in California but you can bet that will change over the next 10 years.

PS: All new Hummers are electric and they do 0 to 60 m/h in 3.5 seconds! Wouldn't be hard to produce a "battery truck" that could fast charge the Hummers either? Maybe 1 truck per 4 Hummers?

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

10 hours ago, Wombat said:

PS: All new Hummers are electric and they do 0 to 60 m/h in 3.5 seconds! Wouldn't be hard to produce a "battery truck" that could fast charge the Hummers either? Maybe 1 truck per 4 Hummers?

These military Hummers are not electric.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

35 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

These military Hummers are not electric.

But @ceo_energemsier, how can you miss the obvious?  All we need are MORE expensive military equipment!  In this case EV Hummers.  And all we need to be able to spend MORE on military equipment such as this, is to buy MORE expensive support vehicles to charge them up.  I hope someone educates me on how fast a "fast charging" battery truck can recharge 4 HUMMERS, not only one, but 4!  Imagine if they only have to pause a hostile situation for 1 hour, ONLY 1 HOUR!  Imagine the possibilities!

[Wombat + 1,028]

3 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

But @ceo_energemsier, how can you miss the obvious?  All we need are MORE expensive military equipment!  In this case EV Hummers.  And all we need to be able to spend MORE on military equipment such as this, is to buy MORE expensive support vehicles to charge them up.  I hope someone educates me on how fast a "fast charging" battery truck can recharge 4 HUMMERS, not only one, but 4!  Imagine if they only have to pause a hostile situation for 1 hour, ONLY 1 HOUR!  Imagine the possibilities!

Don't be ridiculous. It would only take 15-20 mins to simultaneously charge 4 Hummers. More to the point, the truck would source it's energy from solar power at the base., but could also carry panels for extended operations. In the Afghanistan war, the most dangerous job was that of fuel supply driver. Why do you think the Pentagon is so keen on renewables? They want to produce power on site.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 10/15/2020 at 7:21 PM, 0R0 said:

https://globalcapitalallocation.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/CMNS-Paper.pdf

It is apropos to note that China is in no position to have Trump win, and it is intending to beat up Bloomberg and Goldman among others if he does. Bloomberg's expenditure is  not ideologically driven but an attempt to avoid an existential threat of having his China business shut down.

China is soon going to be unable to fund its oil and food purchases. The supposed net foreign asset position is much smaller than its official stats show at the IMF etc. The bottom line is that they are highly owned by US and other nationality countries. So the net position of China is all of the $1.1 Trillion they had at the Fed. Everything else is balanced out by liabilities via Cayman etc.  funding vehicles 

Interestingly, the US position in China investments nets out at $700 Billion in 2018, and likely stands at nearly $1 Trillion today as China's weight in the MSCI bond and equity indexes has increased and dragged US portfolio investments into China. The $100 Billion official figure is not realistic.

It is also significant to note that China is not reflecting varying equity values of offshore traded parent companies in the reported official Net Financial Asset account, while reallocating those assets out of their Cayman etc. to their owner's nationality shows the asset side varying with the offshore share prices of the parents of China companies. Thus China's official liabilities are kept off their capital accounts book.

That is a problem for China in accessing dollar funding. Thus a problem for their continued oil consumption.

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. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

12 minutes 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.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, Wombat said:

Don't be ridiculous. It would only take 15-20 mins to simultaneously charge 4 Hummers. More to the point, the truck would source it's energy from solar power at the base., but could also carry panels for extended operations. In the Afghanistan war, the most dangerous job was that of fuel supply driver. Why do you think the Pentagon is so keen on renewables? They want to produce power on site.

Break it down:

1. 15-20 minute breaks from battle are no more acceptable than 1 hour breaks, but both fuel supplies would require some downtime to replenish.

2. 1 extra "charging vehicle" for each 4 Hummers vs fleet fuel replenishment vehicles already produced and deployed.

3. In battle, base power or fuel is not an option unless it can be transported en masse to the battlefield.  Both can be, obviously, but in your scenario see point 2.

4. Please enlighten me as to how much of the required charge for continuous operations in the field could solar panels be relied upon to produce?  Could the Humvee get an extra 20 minutes of operations?  1 hour extra?  Continuous operations?  We won't even go to a smokey battlefield or an overcast day.

5. The most dangerous job of fuel supply driver will apply whether the fuel is electricity or diesel, except in your scenario we would have more smaller targets with the accompaniment of more drivers.

6. The Pentagon is so keen on renewables not because they believe it is a proven replacement for existing fuels, but because they are geared towards experimentation to determine if new technologies, or fuels, could be useful for the fighting force.  I will grant you that in peacetime, around the base, there could actually be use for EVs, and I will concede that they should be used IF they are seen to be economical and effective.  It is not because they want to produce power on site.  Imagine what you are saying: Solar farms near the field of battle?  Windmills?

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,246]

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 !!!

[Wombat + 1,028]

1 hour ago, Dan Warnick said:

Break it down:

1. 15-20 minute breaks from battle are no more acceptable than 1 hour breaks, but both fuel supplies would require some downtime to replenish.

2. 1 extra "charging vehicle" for each 4 Hummers vs fleet fuel replenishment vehicles already produced and deployed.

3. In battle, base power or fuel is not an option unless it can be transported en masse to the battlefield.  Both can be, obviously, but in your scenario see point 2.

4. Please enlighten me as to how much of the required charge for continuous operations in the field could solar panels be relied upon to produce?  Could the Humvee get an extra 20 minutes of operations?  1 hour extra?  Continuous operations?  We won't even go to a smokey battlefield or an overcast day.

5. The most dangerous job of fuel supply driver will apply whether the fuel is electricity or diesel, except in your scenario we would have more smaller targets with the accompaniment of more drivers.

6. The Pentagon is so keen on renewables not because they believe it is a proven replacement for existing fuels, but because they are geared towards experimentation to determine if new technologies, or fuels, could be useful for the fighting force.  I will grant you that in peacetime, around the base, there could actually be use for EVs, and I will concede that they should be used IF they are seen to be economical and effective.  It is not because they want to produce power on site.  Imagine what you are saying: Solar farms near the field of battle?  Windmills?

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.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

10 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.

Yeah, okay.  I can see how that would not be a target.  I guess if you closed the panels up everyday for the sandstorms you wouldn't get too much erosion.   C'mon, man!  Now you move to H2.  Okay, yeah!  But that's another discussion.