GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

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

Please specify the clause that prohibits Ford from owning and operating a competing car company.

I recommend you stick to the cartoons.

Posting a empty template is a dealer agreement? I might ask what yr class, which state is this dealer template legal in. 

Jay you truly have more Bull running in your veins than most. You may defer back to Farleys statement...I don't recall him stating there would be a new Ford motors.

Actually I distinctly remember Ford's previous CEO stating Ford would no longer build cars...Today he is just a memory of what not to do. One can only ponder what happened...LMAO.

Ford's Jim Hackett is out as CEO, to be succeeded by Jim Farley as restructuring plan fails to reignite stock

Ford Motor CEO and President Jim Hackett will "unexpectedly" retire in the midst of an $11 billion restructuring plan that has failed to impress investors

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/04/ford-ceo-jim-hackett-to-retire-as-stock-lags-automaker-taps-jim-farley.html

Ford CEO Hackett's decision to dump cars 'may prove fatal'

• Ford's new CEO, Jim Hackett, announced a bold strategic move for America's most enduring automaker: abandoning the car business.
• Bowing to short-term shareholder pressures that felled predecessor Mark Fields, Hackett is undoing 115 years of Ford's automobile legacy.
• A 3 percent jump in Ford's stock price validated Hackett's decision, but that adrenaline shot could be short-lived.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/30/ford-ceo-jim-hacketts-decision-to-dump-cars-may-prove-fatal.html

Edited February 6, 2022 by Eyes Wide Open

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Posting a empty template is a dealer agreement? I might ask what yr class, which state is this dealer template legal in. 

Jay you truly have more Bull running in your veins than most. You may defer back to Farleys statement...I don't recall him stating there would be a new Ford motors.

Actually I distinctly remember Ford's previous CEO stating Ford would no longer build cars...Today he is just a memory of what not to do. One can only ponder what happened...LMAO.

Ford's Jim Hackett is out as CEO, to be succeeded by Jim Farley as restructuring plan fails to reignite stock

Ford Motor CEO and President Jim Hackett will "unexpectedly" retire in the midst of an $11 billion restructuring plan that has failed to impress investors

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/04/ford-ceo-jim-hackett-to-retire-as-stock-lags-automaker-taps-jim-farley.html

You are unbelievably daft. Yes that is the standard dealer agreement as registered with the SEC. It is intended to be valid in all states and it does not in anyway preclude Ford from owning and operating a competing car company.

The Fortune article suggested that Farley was providing a good argument about separating the ICE and EV businesses into different companies in order to unlock shareholder value. You then claimed that doing so would open Ford to litigation from the Dealers for violation of the Dealership Agreement. Since you cannot identify the clause in the agreement that Ford would be violating if they did such, we can conclude that you have no understanding of what is going on and are talking out your arse.

 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

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

Please specify the clause that prohibits Ford from owning and operating a competing car company.

I recommend you stick to the cartoons.

Easy as it goes Jay, I understand being a green maniac is stressful these days. Just calm down before life takes a toll on you....A miserable future indeed.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

18 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The Fortune article suggested that Farley was providing a good argument about separating the ICE and EV businesses into different companies in order to unlock shareholder value

I'm daft you say? Look at your thought processes. GM has invested BILLIONS since 2009 into EV technology only to lose Billions once deployed. Are you a madman?

Since 2009, GM has announced more than $5.4 billion in U.S. facility investment for vehicle technologies that benefit customers. This includes more than $2.8 billion invested in Michigan-based facilities alone.

https://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2014/Apr/0408-investment.html

 

GM's $2 billion Chevy Bolt fire recall casts shadow over electric vehicle market

Industry officials worry about the potential impact any fires could have when the industry is investing billions in the shift to battery 

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/gm-s-2-billion-chevy-bolt-fire-recall-casts-shadow-n1277460

Elon Musk  improve afte

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

Elon Musk says GM has room to improve after the carmaker sold 26 electric vehicles in the last quarter of 2021

• Elon Musk tweeted that GM has "room to improve" after it sold 26 electric vehicles in Q4 of 2021.
• GM's Q4 2021 delivery table showed that it sold 25 Bolt EVs and EUVs, and one Hummer EV pickup.
• The results came after GM halted production of Bolt EVs and EUVs in August due to a battery defect.
• https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-gm-room-improve-sold-26-electric-vehicles-2022-1

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

I'm daft you say? Look at your thought processes. GM has invested BILLIONS since 2009 into EV technology only to lose Billions once deployed. Are you a madman?

Since 2009, GM has announced more than $5.4 billion in U.S. facility investment for vehicle technologies that benefit customers. This includes more than $2.8 billion invested in Michigan-based facilities alone.

https://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2014/Apr/0408-investment.html

 

GM's $2 billion Chevy Bolt fire recall casts shadow over electric vehicle market

Industry officials worry about the potential impact any fires could have when the industry is investing billions in the shift to battery 

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/gm-s-2-billion-chevy-bolt-fire-recall-casts-shadow-n1277460

Elon Musk  improve afte

Yes, you are daft.

The $5.4 billion in U.S. facility investment was mostly for ICE. Only a little over $1B was for EV. 

"The investment, announced at the Automotive Press Association, is the largest to date at both facilities and includes $384 million at Detroit-Hamtramck for new Body Shop tooling, equipment, and additional plant upgrades to build the next generation Chevrolet Volt and two future products. This brings GM’s total investment at Detroit-Hamtramck to more than $1 billion over the last five years.

GM’s $65 million investment at its Brownstown Battery Assembly will support the next generation of lithium-ion battery production and future battery systems."

 

LG reimbursed GM $1.9B so they actually only lost $100 million. And ultimately I can't help it if GM is inept. Tesla made $4B last year excluding credits and this year they will make $8B.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

18 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yes, you are daft.

The $5.4 billion in U.S. facility investment was mostly for ICE. Only a little over $1B was for EV. 

"The investment, announced at the Automotive Press Association, is the largest to date at both facilities and includes $384 million at Detroit-Hamtramck for new Body Shop tooling, equipment, and additional plant upgrades to build the next generation Chevrolet Volt and two future products. This brings GM’s total investment at Detroit-Hamtramck to more than $1 billion over the last five years.

GM’s $65 million investment at its Brownstown Battery Assembly will support the next generation of lithium-ion battery production and future battery systems."

 

LG reimbursed GM $1.9B so they actually only lost $100 million. And ultimately I can't help it if GM is inept. Tesla made $4B last year excluding credits and this year they will make $8B.

Daft defined

GM promised 20 new EVs by 2023. They brought zero to the LA Auto Show

Nov. 18th 2021 11:10 am PT

 

This complete lack of anything electric is made worse by the fact that GM promised it wouldn’t be this way. In October 2017, GM said they would have “at least 20 new all-electric vehicles that will launch by 2023.” GM president Mark Reuss added that “these aren’t just words in a war of press releases.” And one year ago, they upped that ante to 30 new EVs by 2025.

https://electrek.co/2021/11/18/gm-promised-20-new-evs-by-2023-they-brought-zero-to-the-la-auto-show/

Edited February 6, 2022 by Eyes Wide Open

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

UBS: GM Probably Loses About $7,400 Per Chevrolet Bolt EV

According to a complete teardown analysis of the new Chevrolet Bolt EV commissioned by financial services company UBS, General Motors could be losing about $7,400 per unit sale.

That’s assuming that General Motors sells roughly 30,000 units per year, says UBS analyst Colin Langan, meaning relatively few sales for General Motors to spread its research and development costs over. But “the big driver” that could help combat GM’s Bolt EV losses in the future is battery cost, he says. “Battery costs are going from, you know, over $200 per kilowatt-hour today, and we estimate it will be around $130 per kilowatt-hour” by 2025.

Some components in the powertrain could also become less costly in the future, Langan says: “We also assume there are certain components – and that was part of our expert analysis – that have a good step function coming down on the EV powertrain that will also help.” UBS estimates that the Chevrolet Bolt EV’s powertrain today contributes about a $9,000 cost premium, but that by 2025, it would only represent about another $3,000 to $4,000 versus a comparable gasoline powertrain.

In the Bloomberg video above, Colin Langan talks to the outlet about the Chevrolet Bolt EV, as well as one of its biggest forthcoming competitors: Tesla Motors’ $35,000 Model 3. That car is expected to offer a battery-electric range similar to that achieved by the Bolt, while only losing Tesla an estimated $2,800 per unit.

Click play to get the full scoop.

Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a 2022 Corvette C8.R IMSA GTLM Championship Edition. Details here.

2018 Cadillac CT6 Plug-In Gets New CUE Infotainment System, New Color And Updated Automatic Parking System »
« GMC Canyon Sales Drop 26 Percent To 2,477 Units In May 2017
Aaron Brzozowski: Aaron Brzozowski is a writer and motoring enthusiast from Detroit with an affinity for '80s German steel. He is not active on the Twitter these days, but you may send him a courier pigeon.
View Comments (7)
steve says:June 21, 2017 at 2:04 pm
$2.8K*500,000=$1.4B ... that is how much tesla is going to lose if the model 3 is a huge success?

John says:June 22, 2017 at 10:45 am
Steve, when and if Tesla ever builds the 500,000. Remember Musk is building semi's and tunnels at the same time. Maybe he is using the semi's to haul the dirt out of the tunnels. He has our terrible media juicing the Stock daily.

bobp says:June 21, 2017 at 3:00 pm
Easy for UBS to cook up that GM is losing $7,400 on each Bolt sold, while Tesla will only lose $2,800 per Model 3.

GM does have much more leverage with it's suppliers to obtain pricing concessions for the Bolt.

Jake says:June 21, 2017 at 3:23 pm
Soif like idiot Bloomberg predicts,and the cost of batteries is cut in half by 2025 ( that's a long shot) then 9000/2=4500$ off of 7000, so gm's will still be in the tank 2500/unit, welcome to our "sustainable energy". That's why the government wants it sooooo bad. No auto company can afford it so they will take over industry. Man, hitler should of just been an environmentalist!

Jason says:June 21, 2017 at 5:11 pm
It's "should have".

Here's an example, "You should have gotten off the Crazy Train earlier, but now it's too late."

VCAT says:June 21, 2017 at 7:49 pm
Lets see if I got this right. GM will lose $7400 on eachh Bolt and Tesla will only lose $24000 and charge $2500 less per vehicle. Sounds like flawed math to me. I find it hard to believe that GM is that much less efficient.

John says:June 22, 2017 at 10:36 am
So $2,800 on the Model 3 loss and $7,400 on the Chev Bolt. Just more media and Analysts Fake news. The last quarter per vehicle sold Tesla lost over $15,000 per vehicle sold. These vehicle sold from $70.000 to over $100,000. Now they are only going to loss $2,800 on a $35,000 dollar vehicle. Watching the media juice Tesla stock is sickening, and making ano.ther stock Bubble

Leave a Comment
Related Post
Chevy Bolt EV At Bottom Of J.D. Power 2022 U.S. EV Experience Ownership Study

 https://gmauthority.com/blog/2017/06/ubs-gm-probably-loses-about-7400-per-chevrolet-bolt-ev/

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Daft defined

GM promised 20 new EVs by 2023. They brought zero to the LA Auto Show

This complete lack of anything electric is made worse by the fact that GM promised it wouldn’t be this way. In October 2017, GM said they would have “at least 20 new all-electric vehicles that will launch by 2023.” GM president Mark Reuss added that “these aren’t just words in a war of press releases.” And one year ago, they upped that ante to 30 new EVs by 2025.

https://electrek.co/2021/11/18/gm-promised-20-new-evs-by-2023-they-brought-zero-to-the-la-auto-show/

If GM doesn't figure out EVs they will go bankrupt by the end of the decade. ICE doesn't have a future. The good news for them is that they don't need a bunch of different models in the next few years. That comes with a mature market. They just need a few models they can produce in volume.

GMC Hummer And Chevrolet Silverado EV Demand Is Insane

FEB 3, 2022BY NIKESH KOOVERJEE ELECTRIC VEHICLES / 6 COMMENTS

Close to a combined 170,000 reservations have been confirmed for both pickups.

 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

If GM doesn't figure out EVs they will go bankrupt by the end of the decade. ICE doesn't have a future. The good news for them is that they don't need a bunch of different models in the next few years. That comes with a mature market. They just need a few models they can produce in volume.

GMC Hummer And Chevrolet Silverado EV Demand Is Insane

FEB 3, 2022BY NIKESH KOOVERJEE ELECTRIC VEHICLES / 6 COMMENTS

Close to a combined 170,000 reservations have been confirmed for both pickups.

 

• GM's Q4 2021 delivery table showed that it sold 25 Bolt EVs and EUVs, and one Hummer EV pickup.
• You define 1 as insane?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

UBS: GM Probably Loses About $7,400 Per Chevrolet Bolt EV

According to a complete teardown analysis of the new Chevrolet Bolt EV commissioned by financial services company UBS, General Motors could be losing about $7,400 per unit sale.

That’s assuming that General Motors sells roughly 30,000 units per year, says UBS analyst Colin Langan, meaning relatively few sales for General Motors to spread its research and development costs over. But “the big driver” that could help combat GM’s Bolt EV losses in the future is battery cost, he says. “Battery costs are going from, you know, over $200 per kilowatt-hour today, and we estimate it will be around $130 per kilowatt-hour” by 2025.

Some components in the powertrain could also become less costly in the future, Langan says: “We also assume there are certain components – and that was part of our expert analysis – that have a good step function coming down on the EV powertrain that will also help.” UBS estimates that the Chevrolet Bolt EV’s powertrain today contributes about a $9,000 cost premium, but that by 2025, it would only represent about another $3,000 to $4,000 versus a comparable gasoline powertrain.

In the Bloomberg video above, Colin Langan talks to the outlet about the Chevrolet Bolt EV, as well as one of its biggest forthcoming competitors: Tesla Motors’ $35,000 Model 3. That car is expected to offer a battery-electric range similar to that achieved by the Bolt, while only losing Tesla an estimated $2,800 per unit.

Click play to get the full scoop.

Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a 2022 Corvette C8.R IMSA GTLM Championship Edition. Details here.

2018 Cadillac CT6 Plug-In Gets New CUE Infotainment System, New Color And Updated Automatic Parking System »
« GMC Canyon Sales Drop 26 Percent To 2,477 Units In May 2017
Aaron Brzozowski: Aaron Brzozowski is a writer and motoring enthusiast from Detroit with an affinity for '80s German steel. He is not active on the Twitter these days, but you may send him a courier pigeon.
View Comments (7)
steve says:June 21, 2017 at 2:04 pm
$2.8K*500,000=$1.4B ... that is how much tesla is going to lose if the model 3 is a huge success?

John says:June 22, 2017 at 10:45 am
Steve, when and if Tesla ever builds the 500,000. Remember Musk is building semi's and tunnels at the same time. Maybe he is using the semi's to haul the dirt out of the tunnels. He has our terrible media juicing the Stock daily.

bobp says:June 21, 2017 at 3:00 pm
Easy for UBS to cook up that GM is losing $7,400 on each Bolt sold, while Tesla will only lose $2,800 per Model 3.

GM does have much more leverage with it's suppliers to obtain pricing concessions for the Bolt.

Jake says:June 21, 2017 at 3:23 pm
Soif like idiot Bloomberg predicts,and the cost of batteries is cut in half by 2025 ( that's a long shot) then 9000/2=4500$ off of 7000, so gm's will still be in the tank 2500/unit, welcome to our "sustainable energy". That's why the government wants it sooooo bad. No auto company can afford it so they will take over industry. Man, hitler should of just been an environmentalist!

Jason says:June 21, 2017 at 5:11 pm
It's "should have".

Here's an example, "You should have gotten off the Crazy Train earlier, but now it's too late."

VCAT says:June 21, 2017 at 7:49 pm
Lets see if I got this right. GM will lose $7400 on eachh Bolt and Tesla will only lose $24000 and charge $2500 less per vehicle. Sounds like flawed math to me. I find it hard to believe that GM is that much less efficient.

John says:June 22, 2017 at 10:36 am
So $2,800 on the Model 3 loss and $7,400 on the Chev Bolt. Just more media and Analysts Fake news. The last quarter per vehicle sold Tesla lost over $15,000 per vehicle sold. These vehicle sold from $70.000 to over $100,000. Now they are only going to loss $2,800 on a $35,000 dollar vehicle. Watching the media juice Tesla stock is sickening, and making ano.ther stock Bubble

Leave a Comment
Related Post
Chevy Bolt EV At Bottom Of J.D. Power 2022 U.S. EV Experience Ownership Study

 https://gmauthority.com/blog/2017/06/ubs-gm-probably-loses-about-7400-per-chevrolet-bolt-ev/

5 year old irrelevance. Battery costs have dramatically decreased since then. Tesla is now making a 30% profit margin on each car. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

5 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

• GM's Q4 2021 delivery table showed that it sold 25 Bolt EVs and EUVs, and one Hummer EV pickup.
• You define 1 as insane?

 You do enjoy being daft. 1 was what they supplied, it has no bearing on demand which is 170,000 reservations for the two pickups.

Edited February 6, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Eric Gagen + 713]

6 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

All these "what if" prognostications are worthless if they fizzle out in few years, as these ones surely will. It is all based on public panic over misguided climate alarmism. 

The weak science behind the panic will be, and has already been, exposed as worthless, and it will not be long before the political opportunism which has attached itself to climate panic will also fade.

This will all be nothing but a bad dream from which rational people will emerge shortly.

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.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 2/4/2022 at 8:03 PM, Eyes Wide Open said:

It comes with age. Be kind show some respect for your elders! 

Aren't all of you equally ancient?

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

49 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Aren't all of you equally ancient?

Quite true, trust me here I have been quite restrained in my responses....respectfully that is.

Youth is wasted on the young takes on quite a bit of relevance as time burns.

Edited February 7, 2022 by Eyes Wide Open

[Rob Plant + 2,608]

On 2/5/2022 at 1:50 AM, Old-Ruffneck said:

Read that liberal nature rag, and if yer worried about 35 million tonnes of Carbon Dioxide, get off yer old butt and start replanting the forrests. If the railroads keep using diesel there is a damn fine reason behind it. Redundancy and proven power, and battery tech isn't mature enough for the Railroads to make that heavy of an investment. 

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.

[kshithij Sharma + 78]

On 2/6/2022 at 10:02 AM, Ecocharger said:

All these "what if" prognostications are worthless if they fizzle out in few years, as these ones surely will. It is all based on public panic over misguided climate alarmism. 

The weak science behind the panic will be, and has already been, exposed as worthless, and it will not be long before the political opportunism which has attached itself to climate panic will also fade.

This will all be nothing but a bad dream from which rational people will emerge shortly.

The science behind the panic is not opportunism but the grim reality. The only thing that the media hides is that the panic is not about climate change but end of an era run by oil as the oil reserves are at the verge of depletion. Going by current production levels, there is only enough oil for another 20 years. Due to uneven distribution of resources, countries like Russia, GCC will have oil till 2050 while countries like USA, Brazil  will run out before 2035 while other countries like Norway, Columbia, Ecuador, Mexico will run out by 2030-31.

This is the reason for panic. It is like the tale of ancient mad kings who wants to avoid death and try out foolish ways causing great harm to the people under him. In the end, these attempts fail and the kings eventually die or get killed by angry populace. The cause for panic about oil reserves depleting is real but the EVs are impractical and not the solution. It will fail regardless of all the circus done.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, kshithij Sharma said:

The science behind the panic is not opportunism but the grim reality. The only thing that the media hides is that the panic is not about climate change but end of an era run by oil as the oil reserves are at the verge of depletion. Going by current production levels, there is only enough oil for another 20 years. Due to uneven distribution of resources, countries like Russia, GCC will have oil till 2050 while countries like USA, Brazil  will run out before 2035 while other countries like Norway, Columbia, Ecuador, Mexico will run out by 2030-31.

This is the reason for panic. It is like the tale of ancient mad kings who wants to avoid death and try out foolish ways causing great harm to the people under him. In the end, these attempts fail and the kings eventually die or get killed by angry populace. The cause for panic about oil reserves depleting is real but the EVs are impractical and not the solution. It will fail regardless of all the circus done.

I'll disagree with you about the specific dates, because they depend on published reserve figures which are incredibly bad - they don't even all measure the same thing when compared between different countries, but the essence of your assessment is correct - the 'age of oil' won't last forever.  Partly this is because there isn't an infinite amount of oil, and partly it's because alternatives like EV's ARE a practical replacement.  

IMHO humanity will switch over to EV's well considerably before all the oil is burned.  

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

5 hours ago, kshithij Sharma said:

The science behind the panic is not opportunism but the grim reality. The only thing that the media hides is that the panic is not about climate change but end of an era run by oil as the oil reserves are at the verge of depletion. Going by current production levels, there is only enough oil for another 20 years. Due to uneven distribution of resources, countries like Russia, GCC will have oil till 2050 while countries like USA, Brazil  will run out before 2035 while other countries like Norway, Columbia, Ecuador, Mexico will run out by 2030-31.

This is the reason for panic. It is like the tale of ancient mad kings who wants to avoid death and try out foolish ways causing great harm to the people under him. In the end, these attempts fail and the kings eventually die or get killed by angry populace. The cause for panic about oil reserves depleting is real but the EVs are impractical and not the solution. It will fail regardless of all the circus done.

When can we expect the EV market to fail? 

[kshithij Sharma + 78]

5 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

I'll disagree with you about the specific dates, because they depend on published reserve figures which are incredibly bad - they don't even all measure the same thing when compared between different countries, but the essence of your assessment is correct - the 'age of oil' won't last forever.  Partly this is because there isn't an infinite amount of oil, and partly it's because alternatives like EV's ARE a practical replacement.  

IMHO humanity will switch over to EV's well considerably before all the oil is burned.  

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.

Oil reserves of Russia and USA are the only 2 unknown to simr extent. However, even then it is known that Russian oil reserves are extremely vast. Also, Russia has massive amounts of gas with condensate which can substitute oil to a good extent. So, it is settled that Russian oil will last pretty long. The only X-factor is USA. Current proven and probable reserves are only good to last till 2032. Even adding 10-15% to it will still not get it past 2035. Also the political gossips in Arab States, the political mood in USA and some other technical data does that 2035 is most likely to be the maximum extent of USA oil.

The chances of deviating the overall estimated timelines is minimal considering that the current oil consumption is about 32 billion barrels a year. Even a massive oil discovery of 30 billion barrels will still only give an overall extension of 1 year which isn't much.

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

When can we expect the EV market to fail? 

EV is like the crazed potions made by mad kings of the past to avoid death. Just like the way those potions were doomed to fail, EV is also a doomed to fail before it even began.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour 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.

Oil reserves of Russia and USA are the only 2 unknown to simr extent. However, even then it is known that Russian oil reserves are extremely vast. Also, Russia has massive amounts of gas with condensate which can substitute oil to a good extent. So, it is settled that Russian oil will last pretty long. The only X-factor is USA. Current proven and probable reserves are only good to last till 2032. Even adding 10-15% to it will still not get it past 2035. Also the political gossips in Arab States, the political mood in USA and some other technical data does that 2035 is most likely to be the maximum extent of USA oil.

The chances of deviating the overall estimated timelines is minimal considering that the current oil consumption is about 32 billion barrels a year. Even a massive oil discovery of 30 billion barrels will still only give an overall extension of 1 year which isn't much.

EV is like the crazed potions made by mad kings of the past to avoid death. Just like the way those potions were doomed to fail, EV is also a doomed to fail before it even began.

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.  

Edited February 7, 2022 by Eric Gagen

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

52 minutes ago, kshithij Sharma said:

 

EV is like the crazed potions made by mad kings of the past to avoid death. Just like the way those potions were doomed to fail, EV is also a doomed to fail before it even began.

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

Edited February 7, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour 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

Which was 8.6% of all automobile sales worldwide.  

[TailingsPond + 466]

On 2/6/2022 at 12:46 AM, Eyes Wide Open said:

Easy as it goes Jay, I understand being a green maniac is stressful these days. Just calm down before life takes a toll on you....A miserable future indeed.

Haha!

You are the one who needs to calm down and eat a giant plate of crow.

 

 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

42 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Haha!

You are the one who needs to calm down and eat a giant plate of crow.

 

 

Gabby how are things? This plate of Crow, would you plzz illuminate.