GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[kshithij Sharma + 78]

11 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Your assessment of reserves is exceedingly bad, and it’s the key source of potential error If you look at the OPEC reserves estimates from the 1970’s they are MUCH MUCH lower than current estimates.  Then they suddenly went up in coordinated fashion in 1986.  They have never gone up or down since then except for a few tiny adjustments.  That implies either that for the last 35 years they have discovered exactly as much oil as they have produced in every country listed, or that the numbers are completely fabricated.  I’ll let you decide which is more likely.  This is a major subject for a thread of its own.

edit:  to get an idea of how bad OPEC reserve numbers are, they are probably off by ~ 500 billion bbls (actual numbers are less than official numbers)

the US is an opposite case - it’s definitions of reserves is extremely limited - actual oil produced has exceeded reserves many times over.  Since the 1930’s the amount of oil the US counts as reserves has never been over 50 billion bbls.  And yet between now and then, it has produced about 250 billion bbls.  This is partly due to discoveries, and partly because of the way reserves are legally defined in US law.

 

Russian reserves are probably the closest to being realistic at least among major producers, since they include a reasonable estimate of proved and probable reserves (behind pipe, perforated and reasonably inferred, using a probabilistic method.  US reserves are proved only, minimum volume, currently in production.  

I have considered the oil reserve inflation of GCC countries. That is why I specifically spoke about USA's assessment of oil reserves in 1970s. For example, USA had submitted dossiers to congress on KSA oil reserves in 1979 which stated that oil resources is 530GBL. In KSA, with EOR, the extraction is 50-55% of oil in place. Similarly, I have done some research to estimate the oil reserves of several other countries. The only countries whose reserves is not clear are USA, Russia & China.

I have not given much importance to China as China is a marginal player with 20GBL and even a 5GBL extra won't matter much in the grand scheme of things. In case of Russia, I have strong hunch that it may have significant amount of oil in Siberia which is not yet disclosed by Russia. I have added 20GBL oil to the current estimate though in reality it may be much more. However, that is not of much significance as Russian official oil reserves disclosed as of now is itself enough to last till 2050 and there is no likelihood of Russia extracting additional oil to supply the west as oil depletes.

About USA, I know how USA shows limited oil reserves by imposing various arbitrary conditions just to hide its actual reserves. For example, the tight oil reserves were actually developed after the 1973 oil sanctions and even had started producing oil by 1979. It was closed down by govt citing "environmental damage". Guess what, the environment no longer matters since 2008 as these fields are now being drilled. Despite all the shenanigans and conspiracies, it is still possible to get a rough inkling of the amount of oil USA can extract. This is how I made an estimation of USA oil reserves:

USA extracted 240GBL from 1860 till 2020. The total oil resource available now is 340GBL. So, the initial oil in place was about 575GBL. Assuming 50% extraction on average (55% of large conventional fields, 50% of small and medium conventional fields and 25% of shale), we get roughly 290GBL. Since 235GBL is extracted, remaining is 55GBL which will last till 2033. Adding 5 GBL for being conservative, I took 60GBL

The world oil reserves is about 650GBL. The oil consumption (NGL, Tar sands excluded) is 30GBL per year

Here are some of the rough oil reserves based on various calculations and speculations in GBL:

KSA: 110

UAE: 33-35

Kuwait: 33-35

Iraq: 50

Iran: 50

Azerbaijan: 7

Qatar: 5

Oman: 5

Yemen: 3

Syria: 2

Bahrain: <1

Libya: 15

Algeria: 12

Egypt: 4

Malaysia: 4

Indonesia: 3

Russia: 125 (with shale oil of 20GBL)

Nigeria: 22

Kazhakhstan: 20

USA: 60 (with shale oil)

China: 20

Brazil: 12

Ecuador: 8

Angola: 7

Mexico: 6

Norway: 7

India: 5

Canada, Venezuela, Vietnam, Sudan, Colombia, Chad, Argentina, UK, Australia, Bruinei, Guinea, Peru and others: 20 (PS:Venezuela and Canada don't hold large oil reserves but hold tar sands)

 

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Meanwhile EV sales just keep skyrocketing. The CAGR since 2013 is 60% whereas Moore's Law is only 42%. Is this what you think doomed to fail before it even began looks like?

https://research.ark-invest.com/hubfs/1_Download_Files_ARK-Invest/White_Papers/ARK_BigIdeas2022.pdf?hsCtaTracking=217bbc93-a71a-4c2b-9959-0842b6fe301c|2653a4d0-af35-42f0-853a-c5f90f002abb

Over 50% of the sales is from China due to govt mandate that disincentives ICE and makes people buy EV. China's car sales is increasing China's oil consumption and hence its import dependency. So, China is using govt policy to reduce ICE car sales and substitute it with EV instead. However, it is a forced move and is actually causing lowering of overall car sales. China being a big country with huge coal reserves and production is seeing huge rapid income growth and hence growth in domestic consumption. China can afford to slow down the growth butut that is not the case with USA, EU etc as the markets are already stable and any attempt to push EV will lower sales and push the economy to recession. Moreover, EVs don't work for commercial vehicles that need quick refuel/charge.

So, EVs are not sustainable. Its growth is due to government incentivised push rather than actual utility or competency benefits

[kshithij Sharma + 78]

On 2/6/2022 at 5:04 PM, Eric Gagen said:

Lad - I hate to break it to you, but these companies aren’t doing it because of any political agenda, or ‘green economic science’ or panic. They just want high earnings per share, and are planning to have them in the future.

Companies don't need money as they are non living entities. Companies do what its investors/shareholders want it to do. These shareholders are investing in loss making companies, startups and raising them from ground up and nurturing for decades for a measly profits in the future. I don't see "earnings" anywhere. For example, Tesla was founded in 2003 and made profits only in 2020. It received total funding >20 billion before earning anything. I am pretty sure that much smaller amount invested in Toyota, Nissan etc to improve design and marketability would have given much more profits than Tesla.

23 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

ESG (environmental and social governance) is a massive deal for investors and shareholders of large global companies.

Investors are demanding that this is taken seriously or they dont invest. Ultimately money talks.

Railroad companies are no different to oil/energy companies and will need to demonstrate they are taking ESG very seriously  which maybe why many are looking into battery driven locomotives.

Excellent point. There is one clarification - the investors are not just about any random layman but large industrial families who are deeply involved in politics and definitely have a political agenda behind their investments. Ultimately it is the politically investing that force the ESGs. If it was a "free market" with strictly businessmen controlled industries, no one would ever follow even 1 single ESG guideline

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

14 hours ago, kshithij Sharma said:

The oil reserves of GCC and Arab States is almost definitely known as it was assessed by USA (3rd party) in the 1970s and hence can't be changed. Oil reserves of other countries like Columbia, Mexico, Norway are also known for similar reasons.

Dont like to rain on your parade, but a few points here.

Firstly the 1970's was 50 years ago and many offshore and onshore discoveries have happened since then, ie for Norway Johan Sverdrup field and Johan Castberg field in the very recent past.

Also technology has improved efficiencies meaning that previous fields that were uneconomical are now economical to develop.

There is also this thing called "fracking" that wasn't around in the 1970's (or considered to be viable back then) which has massively affected oil reserves.

There are now many companies globally that are recycling plastic waste and returning back to oil/fuel. One example below

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-43418391

There is plenty of oil out there for another 50 years at least IMHO

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

4 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Your quote..I guess daft was in order Jay franchise agreement are guide lines. Not to be confused with a dealer agreement.

So what?  Here is the actual Ford Dealership Agreement: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1019849/000095012402000556/k66280ex10-2_13.txt

 

Franchise agreements are usually more rules than guidelines. Conceptually there is no bright line difference between franchise and dealer agreements, they exist on a spectrum with franchise being on the more restrictive end of the spectrum. However, different jurisdictions do create different de jure distinctions. A relationship might be legally a franchise in one jurisdiction and a dealer agreement in another. I called the Ford agreement a franchise dealership agreement because like most car dealership agreements it has elements of both. 

Edited February 8, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[kshithij Sharma + 78]

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Dont like to rain on your parade, but a few points here.

Firstly the 1970's was 50 years ago and many offshore and onshore discoveries have happened since then, ie for Norway Johan Sverdrup field and Johan Castberg field in the very recent past.

Also technology has improved efficiencies meaning that previous fields that were uneconomical are now economical to develop.

There is also this thing called "fracking" that wasn't around in the 1970's (or considered to be viable back then) which has massively affected oil reserves.

There are now many companies globally that are recycling plastic waste and returning back to oil/fuel. One example below

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-43418391

There is plenty of oil out there for another 50 years at least IMHO

The oil in place or the initial oil resource is always fixed. USA has done extensive survey of oil fields on every nook and corner of Arab states during the 1950-1980 time period. The extent of surveys almost covered every area of these countries as USA wanted an objective assessment of the amount of oil they had and the amount of influence/power they wield after the 1973 embargo and the subsequent rapprochement. So, one can be reasonably certain of the oil in place in these region to be almost fixed. There has been very limited oil discovered offshore since 1980s and the USA assessment can be considered as a good estimate even now.

I have considered an extraction ratio of 55% of the oil in place. This is considering all the technological advancement and based on the statement of Saudi oil minister regarding the efficient EOR in Ghawar field during 2005-10 time period. Considering that smaller fields tend to have lower extraction ratio, the 55% is reasonably optimistic.

The fracking was started immediately after 1973 embargo and the shale fields in USA even extracted a few thousand barrels a day on a pilot basis. This was stopped in the aftermath of USA-GCC Petrodollar agreement by imposing "environmental protection" regulations. Moreover, in my calculations, I have included "oil in place" or "Oil resources" which include shale resources too. The shale resources simply have low extraction ratio and hence the reserve/resource ratio is low. But none of these have been ignored in my calculations.

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

3 minutes ago, kshithij Sharma said:

The oil in place or the initial oil resource is always fixed. USA has done extensive survey of oil fields on every nook and corner of Arab states during the 1950-1980 time period. The extent of surveys almost covered every area of these countries as USA wanted an objective assessment of the amount of oil they had and the amount of influence/power they wield after the 1973 embargo and the subsequent rapprochement. So, one can be reasonably certain of the oil in place in these region to be almost fixed. There has been very limited oil discovered offshore since 1980s and the USA assessment can be considered as a good estimate even now.

I have considered an extraction ratio of 55% of the oil in place. This is considering all the technological advancement and based on the statement of Saudi oil minister regarding the efficient EOR in Ghawar field during 2005-10 time period. Considering that smaller fields tend to have lower extraction ratio, the 55% is reasonably optimistic.

The fracking was started immediately after 1973 embargo and the shale fields in USA even extracted a few thousand barrels a day on a pilot basis. This was stopped in the aftermath of USA-GCC Petrodollar agreement by imposing "environmental protection" regulations. Moreover, in my calculations, I have included "oil in place" or "Oil resources" which include shale resources too. The shale resources simply have low extraction ratio and hence the reserve/resource ratio is low. But none of these have been ignored in my calculations.

There have been numerous discoveries since the 70's and can you honestly tell me how much oil reserves Saudi has? they dont know themselves or are keeping very quiet about it. Russia is dscovering new oil in the Arctic/ Siberia the lists go on and on.

I really think youre miles off with your prediction.

[kshithij Sharma + 78]

53 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

There have been numerous discoveries since the 70's and can you honestly tell me how much oil reserves Saudi has? they dont know themselves or are keeping very quiet about it. Russia is dscovering new oil in the Arctic/ Siberia the lists go on and on.

I really think youre miles off with your prediction.

Can you tell me how many oil fields were discovered in KSA? I have stated clearly that Russian reserves are an X-factor and is most likely much higher. Russia has always considered oil as a strategic asset and kept it a state secret. However, it is irrelevant as Russia won't be parting with its additional oil and Russia is not a country that is expected to run out before 2050. So, more discoveries are not relevant in determining when current oil era ends

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, kshithij Sharma said:

The oil in place or the initial oil resource is always fixed. USA has done extensive survey of oil fields on every nook and corner of Arab states during the 1950-1980 time period. The extent of surveys almost covered every area of these countries as USA wanted an objective assessment of the amount of oil they had and the amount of influence/power they wield after the 1973 embargo and the subsequent rapprochement. So, one can be reasonably certain of the oil in place in these region to be almost fixed. There has been very limited oil discovered offshore since 1980s and the USA assessment can be considered as a good estimate even now.

I have considered an extraction ratio of 55% of the oil in place. This is considering all the technological advancement and based on the statement of Saudi oil minister regarding the efficient EOR in Ghawar field during 2005-10 time period. Considering that smaller fields tend to have lower extraction ratio, the 55% is reasonably optimistic.

The fracking was started immediately after 1973 embargo and the shale fields in USA even extracted a few thousand barrels a day on a pilot basis. This was stopped in the aftermath of USA-GCC Petrodollar agreement by imposing "environmental protection" regulations. Moreover, in my calculations, I have included "oil in place" or "Oil resources" which include shale resources too. The shale resources simply have low extraction ratio and hence the reserve/resource ratio is low. But none of these have been ignored in my calculations.

Oil in place is fixed by geology, but the way people go about assessing that isn’t. There are many many places around the world producing very large amounts of oil from places that would not even have been investigated by people to determine the oil in place in 1982.  
 

The US did indeed produce some shale oil and gas in 1973 and earlier.  This wasn’t stopped due to environmental concerns - it was stopped because the technology to develop them wasn’t up to the job.  As soon as prices fell down from very high levels they weren’t profitable.  

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

1 hour ago, kshithij Sharma said:

Can you tell me how many oil fields were discovered in KSA? I have stated clearly that Russian reserves are an X-factor and is most likely much higher. Russia has always considered oil as a strategic asset and kept it a state secret. However, it is irrelevant as Russia won't be parting with its additional oil and Russia is not a country that is expected to run out before 2050. So, more discoveries are not relevant in determining when current oil era ends

Here's some 2020 discoveries in KSA

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/energy/oil/saudi-arabia-discovers-two-new-oil-gas-wells/30382#:~:text=Energy Minister Prince Abdul Aziz,in the Northern Borders region.

Here's some more for you

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/saudi-arabia/saudi-arabia-announces-four-oil-and-gas-discoveries-state-news-agency/articleshow/79977790.cms?from=mdr

It took 20 seconds to find on google, you can look for yourself if you're really interested.

The point is what was thought to be the oil reserves in 1970 in a territory are never the whole picture for reasons both I and Eric have already  explained.

If you are using 50 year old data to make your assumptions you are going to be wrong by a long way.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Rob Plant

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

20 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Repeat this with me slowly and read it carefully:  GM is not a good company or organization - it doesn't succeed at very much.  It has been in decline at least for the last 50 years.  The fact that GM has failed at something doesn't mean that it is a bad idea (or a good idea) - it means that GM was involved in the project.

Saab and Opel brands very awesome for a while. Should've divested them while they could.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

7 hours ago, kshithij Sharma said:

Can you tell me how many oil fields were discovered in KSA? I have stated clearly that Russian reserves are an X-factor and is most likely much higher. Russia has always considered oil as a strategic asset and kept it a state secret. However, it is irrelevant as Russia won't be parting with its additional oil and Russia is not a country that is expected to run out before 2050. So, more discoveries are not relevant in determining when current oil era ends

I've been told that the bulk of the Saudi oil is still in just one place, called

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

No truth to that?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

13 hours ago, kshithij Sharma said:

Over 50% of the sales is from China due to govt mandate that disincentives ICE and makes people buy EV. China's car sales is increasing China's oil consumption and hence its import dependency. So, China is using govt policy to reduce ICE car sales and substitute it with EV instead. However, it is a forced move and is actually causing lowering of overall car sales. China being a big country with huge coal reserves and production is seeing huge rapid income growth and hence growth in domestic consumption. China can afford to slow down the growth butut that is not the case with USA, EU etc as the markets are already stable and any attempt to push EV will lower sales and push the economy to recession. Moreover, EVs don't work for commercial vehicles that need quick refuel/charge.

So, EVs are not sustainable. Its growth is due to government incentivised push rather than actual utility or competency benefits

Except that there is huge demand in the US, as evidenced by all the EV reservations, even though there is little in the way of incentives or gov't mandate. Then there are the extremely high satisfaction ratings by all the people who do go EV. If EVs are no good why aren't they complaining?

Total car sales are way down in the US but it has nothing to do with EVs unless you give EVs credit for creating an Osborne effect. In that case you are acknowledging that people want EVs more than ICE.

The vast majority of commercial vehicles sit overnight when they can be charged enough to take them through the entire next work day. Commercial fleets are going to be leaders in electrification because of lower costs. Or consider taxis that sit at taxi stands for twenty minutes, plenty of time to recharge.

E-Transit electric work vans are now leaving the factory in Kansas City and are on their way to the 300 business and commercial customers who have ordered more than 10,000 of them. Ford CEO Jim Farley says his company intends on being the Tesla of electric commercial vehicles. https://cleantechnica.com/2022/02/08/ford-e-transit-deliveries-to-customers-have-begun/

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Eric Gagen + 713]

32 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Saab and Opel brands very awesome for a while. Should've divested them while they could.

Opel is still GM if I understand correctly.  However GM ran Saab straight into the ground.  The Saab name still exists where it is used by the Swedish company for fighter jets and tractor trailers.  

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Eric Gagen said:

Opel is still GM if I understand correctly.  However GM ran Saab straight into the ground.  The Saab name still exists where it is used by the Swedish company for fighter jets and tractor trailers.  

GM sold Opel to PSA, now Stellantis, in 2017.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

43 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

I've been told that the bulk of the Saudi oil is still in just one place, called

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

No truth to that?

At one time that was true, and it is still the largest single oil field in the world, but a lot of new and different discoveries were made in the 1960’s and 1970’s, and collectively they make  Ghawarich less important now.  I would estimate that Ghawar is 25-30% of Saudi reserves and its about 35-40% of production these days.  The actual reserves and production capacities of individual fields in Saudi Arabia are strictly controlled state secrets.  It takes real forensic detective work to get good data. 

Edited February 8, 2022 by Eric Gagen

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

These types of discussionsI enjoy, my grandfather farmed in a small dustbowl in North Dakota now known as the Wiliston formation maturing into Balkan formatin In the 70s it was a speed bump, today that is no longer a accurate portrayal by any means.

Moving along there is another formation called the Green River formation. Technically it is not financially feasible to tap...One has to ask themselves about the shale oil in TX how did that blow up, or the Balkan study's in the 60's/70's being a micro blip on the map. The environmental community will not allow one foot of land for exploration or its war. And of course would alter the landscape of world wide oil producing nations.

200 Year Supply of Oil in Green River Formation

This is an amount about equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves.”

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/200-year-supply-of-oil-in-green-river-formation/

 

 

Lawsuit Challenges Trump Administration Approval of Massive Utah Oil Shale Development

Water-sucking Project Threatens Endangered Species, Climate, Air Quality

BONANZA, Utah— Conservation groups today sued the Trump administration to challenge what would be the nation’s first commercial-scale oil shale mine and processing facility. The lawsuit says officials failed to protect several endangered species when they approved rights-of-way across public lands to provide utilities to the proposed oil shale development.

The massive Enefit project in northeast Utah’s Uintah Basin would also drain billions of gallons of water from the Green River, generate enormous amounts of greenhouse gas pollution and exacerbate the Uintah Basin’s often-dismal air quality.

Today’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Utah, argues that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service violated the law by ignoring the potential harm to endangered fish. In its biological opinion, the agency considered only the harm from water depletions necessary to build the pipeline, not the billions of gallons of Green River water that will be sent through the pipeline to Enefit’s oil shale development.

The Bureau of Land Management also violated the law by failing to adequately analyze the significant environmental impacts of the proposed oil shale development, which likely would not occur but for the agency’s approval of the rights-of-way.

https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/lawsuit-challenges-massive-utah-oil-shale-development-2019-05-16/

 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

These types of discussionsI enjoy, my grandfather farmed in a small dustbowl in North Dakota now known as the Wiliston formation maturing into Balkan formatin In the 70s it was a speed bump, today that is no longer a accurate portrayal by any means.

Moving along there is another formation called the Green River formation. Technically it is not financially feasible to tap...One has to ask themselves about the shale oil in TX how did that blow up, or the Balkan study's in the 60's/70's being a micro blip on the map. The environmental community will not allow one foot of land for exploration or its war. And of course would alter the landscape of world wide oil producing nations.

200 Year Supply of Oil in Green River Formation

This is an amount about equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves.”

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/200-year-supply-of-oil-in-green-river-formation/

 

 

Lawsuit Challenges Trump Administration Approval of Massive Utah Oil Shale Development

Water-sucking Project Threatens Endangered Species, Climate, Air Quality

BONANZA, Utah— Conservation groups today sued the Trump administration to challenge what would be the nation’s first commercial-scale oil shale mine and processing facility. The lawsuit says officials failed to protect several endangered species when they approved rights-of-way across public lands to provide utilities to the proposed oil shale development.

The massive Enefit project in northeast Utah’s Uintah Basin would also drain billions of gallons of water from the Green River, generate enormous amounts of greenhouse gas pollution and exacerbate the Uintah Basin’s often-dismal air quality.

Today’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Utah, argues that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service violated the law by ignoring the potential harm to endangered fish. In its biological opinion, the agency considered only the harm from water depletions necessary to build the pipeline, not the billions of gallons of Green River water that will be sent through the pipeline to Enefit’s oil shale development.

The Bureau of Land Management also violated the law by failing to adequately analyze the significant environmental impacts of the proposed oil shale development, which likely would not occur but for the agency’s approval of the rights-of-way.

https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/lawsuit-challenges-massive-utah-oil-shale-development-2019-05-16/

 

In the 1970’s everyone thought the green river basin was the future of oil production.  And whenever the price of oil gets to $200 a barrel it will be!

That was sarcasm by the way - I don’t think oil will ever reach $200 a bbl (adjusted for inflation) we have better options by the time the price gets that high.  You can fix the water supply problem, and with enough money at stake you can remediate the environmental damage.  What you can’t do is make it cheap. 
 

Not the BLM or anyone else ‘blocked’ the development.  The oil companies that had leases there voluntarily relinquished them because they are worthless. Trump wanted to try and restart this project, but the truth is that it’s worthless without major subsidies.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

GM sold Opel to PSA, now Stellantis, in 2017.

In 2017, it was worthless. Should've sold it to Sberbank earlier (apparently the Feds blocked the sale on national security grounds) All that Sberbank needed was a semi-reputable Western car brand, no technologies. A combination with SAAB was poised to go premium. Cannot beat that discrete charm of Scandinavian cardboard, err minimalism.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

Gasoline draws highlight the market news....America still runs on oil products, and always will.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Oil-Prices-Inch-Closer-To-90-On-Surprise-Crude-Draw.html

"U.S. oil production has reversed its upward trend in the last few weeks. For the week ending January 28—the last week for which the Energy Information Administration has provided data—crude oil production in the United States slipped another 100,000 bpd to 11.5 million bpd. This is down 1.6 million bpd from the pre-pandemic era.

This week, the API reported a draw in gasoline inventories at 1.138 million barrels for the week ending February 4—compared to the previous week's 5.816 million barrel build.

Distillate stocks saw a decrease in inventory of 2.203 million barrels for the week, after last week's 2.508 million barrel decrease. Cushing saw a 2.502 million-barrel decrease this week in what could trigger another wave of worry. Cushing inventories stood just above 30 million barrels as of January 28—down from 60 million barrels at the start of 2021, and down from 37 million barrels at the end of 2021."
 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

5 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Except that there is huge demand in the US, as evidenced by all the EV reservations, even though there is little in the way of incentives or gov't mandate. Then there are the extremely high satisfaction ratings by all the people who do go EV. If EVs are no good why aren't they complaining?

Total car sales are way down in the US but it has nothing to do with EVs unless you give EVs credit for creating an Osborne effect. In that case you are acknowledging that people want EVs more than ICE.

The vast majority of commercial vehicles sit overnight when they can be charged enough to take them through the entire next work day. Commercial fleets are going to be leaders in electrification because of lower costs. Or consider taxis that sit at taxi stands for twenty minutes, plenty of time to recharge.

E-Transit electric work vans are now leaving the factory in Kansas City and are on their way to the 300 business and commercial customers who have ordered more than 10,000 of them. Ford CEO Jim Farley says his company intends on being the Tesla of electric commercial vehicles. https://cleantechnica.com/2022/02/08/ford-e-transit-deliveries-to-customers-have-begun/

 

Tesla recalled more EVs last year than they produced.....don't expect me to spend good money on an EV.

[kshithij Sharma + 78]

6 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

I've been told that the bulk of the Saudi oil is still in just one place, called

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

No truth to that?

Ghawar is the largest field containing about 40% of KSA oil. But it is not the only field.

13 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Here's some 2020 discoveries in KSA

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/energy/oil/saudi-arabia-discovers-two-new-oil-gas-wells/30382#:~:text=Energy Minister Prince Abdul Aziz,in the Northern Borders region.

Here's some more for you

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/saudi-arabia/saudi-arabia-announces-four-oil-and-gas-discoveries-state-news-agency/articleshow/79977790.cms?from=mdr

It took 20 seconds to find on google, you can look for yourself if you're really interested.

The point is what was thought to be the oil reserves in 1970 in a territory are never the whole picture for reasons both I and Eric have already  explained.

If you are using 50 year old data to make your assumptions you are going to be wrong by a long way.

Just read the article again - it is gas field discovery with some condensate, not oil discovery

[kshithij Sharma + 78]

5 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

These types of discussionsI enjoy, my grandfather farmed in a small dustbowl in North Dakota now known as the Wiliston formation maturing into Balkan formatin In the 70s it was a speed bump, today that is no longer a accurate portrayal by any means.

Moving along there is another formation called the Green River formation. Technically it is not financially feasible to tap...One has to ask themselves about the shale oil in TX how did that blow up, or the Balkan study's in the 60's/70's being a micro blip on the map. The environmental community will not allow one foot of land for exploration or its war. And of course would alter the landscape of world wide oil producing nations.

200 Year Supply of Oil in Green River Formation

This is an amount about equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves.”

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/200-year-supply-of-oil-in-green-river-formation/

 

 

Lawsuit Challenges Trump Administration Approval of Massive Utah Oil Shale Development

Water-sucking Project Threatens Endangered Species, Climate, Air Quality

BONANZA, Utah— Conservation groups today sued the Trump administration to challenge what would be the nation’s first commercial-scale oil shale mine and processing facility. The lawsuit says officials failed to protect several endangered species when they approved rights-of-way across public lands to provide utilities to the proposed oil shale development.

The massive Enefit project in northeast Utah’s Uintah Basin would also drain billions of gallons of water from the Green River, generate enormous amounts of greenhouse gas pollution and exacerbate the Uintah Basin’s often-dismal air quality.

Today’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Utah, argues that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service violated the law by ignoring the potential harm to endangered fish. In its biological opinion, the agency considered only the harm from water depletions necessary to build the pipeline, not the billions of gallons of Green River water that will be sent through the pipeline to Enefit’s oil shale development.

The Bureau of Land Management also violated the law by failing to adequately analyze the significant environmental impacts of the proposed oil shale development, which likely would not occur but for the agency’s approval of the rights-of-way.

https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/lawsuit-challenges-massive-utah-oil-shale-development-2019-05-16/

 

Oil shale is pretty low quality oil. It needs to be heated at high temperatures for the oil to be released. The heating should be done in low oxygen condition to ensure the oil released does not catch fire. It is more practical to use coal liquefaction than oil shale.

[kshithij Sharma + 78]

6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Except that there is huge demand in the US, as evidenced by all the EV reservations, even though there is little in the way of incentives or gov't mandate. Then there are the extremely high satisfaction ratings by all the people who do go EV. If EVs are no good why aren't they complaining?

Total car sales are way down in the US but it has nothing to do with EVs unless you give EVs credit for creating an Osborne effect. In that case you are acknowledging that people want EVs more than ICE.

The vast majority of commercial vehicles sit overnight when they can be charged enough to take them through the entire next work day. Commercial fleets are going to be leaders in electrification because of lower costs. Or consider taxis that sit at taxi stands for twenty minutes, plenty of time to recharge.

E-Transit electric work vans are now leaving the factory in Kansas City and are on their way to the 300 business and commercial customers who have ordered more than 10,000 of them. Ford CEO Jim Farley says his company intends on being the Tesla of electric commercial vehicles. https://cleantechnica.com/2022/02/08/ford-e-transit-deliveries-to-customers-have-begun/

 

The electric vehicles serve no useful purpose. Sure, there is demand for it but it has more to do with marketing rather than utility. It is just like high demand and high price of diamonds which is a direct result of marketing by cartels rather than actual utility or scarcity. Sure, diamonds are expensive but they will never be held at the same standards of Gold in terms of universality. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, kshithij Sharma said:

Oil shale is pretty low quality oil. It needs to be heated at high temperatures for the oil to be released. The heating should be done in low oxygen condition to ensure the oil released does not catch fire. It is more practical to use coal liquefaction than oil shale.

What you say about the retorting process is true - it’s complex (yet another reason why it’s expensive) but the oil at the end of the process is quite good.  You may be getting sidetracked with tar sands/oil sands where the final crude is a low value product.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Tesla recalled more EVs last year than they produced.....don't expect me to spend good money on an EV.

And the vast majority of the recalls were for small software issues that were fixed with seamless Over the Air Updates. I guess you won't be buying any new cars after the end of this decade.

Edited February 9, 2022 by Jay McKinsey