GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

6 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

You seem to react to daily data...ridiculous.

I posted 5 year data.

Respond to that time frame.  Nice try deflecting.

That said, reacting to daily data is not a bad thing.  Short-term or day trading is a thing, the markets do it all the time.

I get the feeling you have no investments, no skin in the game, no need to check morning market reports.

 

Edited Friday at 01:10 PM by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

6 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

"You can see"! Show us some data.

Look with your eyes.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

4 hours ago, specinho said:

I'm not saying "experts like engineers are no longer relevant". But, prior to continue asking engineers or experts to do something while they are already doing their best, it is good to have a functional refreshing view before doing anything more...

Academicians living in ivory towers without a care what happens in real world could have been the first to be booted in real world problem solving team.

 

Pure scientists and engineers are different.

Engineers use existing science to solve a real world problems or create a product.  Academics discover new science even is it is essentially useless when it is discovered.

However, pure science often becomes useful products down the road.  For example, Einstein's relativity equations had little practical usefulness at first but now allow for GPS satellites to work. 

 

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

6 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Oil demand is currently growing to all-time highs again, very impressive, and before the markets become liberated by the incoming President.

 

The POTUS can not change global oil demand short of starting wars.  So far the election results have only boosted Tesla, not oil, and the global markets are not restricted and in need of "liberation."

Edited Friday at 01:27 PM by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,475]

7 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

I posted 5 year data.

Respond to that time frame.  Nice try deflecting.

That said, reacting to daily data is not a bad thing.  Short-term or day trading is a thing, the markets do it all the time.

I get the feeling you have no investments, no skin in the game, no need to check morning market reports.

 

No losses....

[Ecocharger + 1,475]

7 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Look with your eyes.

Give some data.

[Ecocharger + 1,475]

6 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

The POTUS can not change global oil demand short of starting wars.  So far the election results have only boosted Tesla, not oil, and the global markets are not restricted and in need of "liberation."

Oil demand continues to break all-time high levels, as I showed you above.

Oil demand is currently growing to all-time highs again, very impressive, and before the markets become liberated by the incoming President.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/StanChart-Traders-Continue-to-Ignore-Non-OPEC-Supply-Slowdown.html

"Previously, StanChart pointed out that oil demand growth, not absolute oil demand, is what has been slowing down from earlier post-pandemic years. Indeed, StanChart has noted that global oil demand has been setting a series of new all-time highs in the current year. 

StanChart reported that the largest demand gains in August came from Korea (219 kb/d), Italy (185 kb/d), Saudi Arabia (117 kb/d), Türkey (99 kb/d) and Spain (88 kb/d). StanChart has now revised its 2024 global demand growth estimate upwards to 1.45 mb/d, thanks to the bigger-than-expected growth in August."

South Korea leads the list, and it is interesting to see why. It has partly to do with the public controversies over EV fires which have threatened to destroy buildings when EV batteries are charging overnight in parking basements and overheat.

https://driving.ca/auto-news/driver-info/ev-electric-vehicle-fire-south-korea-mercedes-benz-parking-garage-sales

"The market in South Korea has responded to these fires with a reported sagging demand for new EVs, despite a round of price cuts, not to mention a spike in listings of used ones. Sound familiar?

However, the stats fans mentioned above could also point out that ...deliveries of new EVs are down about 13% year-over-year in the first seven months of this annum..."

 

 

Edited Friday at 08:24 PM by Ecocharger

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,246]

9 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

The POTUS can not change global oil demand short of starting wars.  So far the election results have only boosted Tesla, not oil, and the global markets are not restricted and in need of "liberation."

Dude, you're one stubborn mf'er. Oil still is KING and ICE vehicles are and will be 95% sales for the foreseeable future. So expect demand to go up if price of crude drops, and EV's will be suppressed even further if oil dips to the mid 60's WTI. You seem to not comprehend EV's cost more to operate than ICE. 103.5 barrels/daily and will climb from there. OPEC and IEA both mis-judged consumption last quarter and back stepped their thinking. 

You seem to have an arrogance about your knowledge of all things relating to Energy as you put it. You argue for the sake of arguing. You're a petty keyboard warrior and can't face the facts. You obviously are not retarded, just too much time on your hands. Maybe find another forum your more qualified to "learn us luddites" as notsosmart says.

[Ron Wagner + 710]

17 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Oil demand is currently growing to all-time highs again, very impressive, and before the markets become liberated by the incoming President.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/StanChart-Traders-Continue-to-Ignore-Non-OPEC-Supply-Slowdown.html

"Previously, StanChart pointed out that oil demand growth, not absolute oil demand, is what has been slowing down from earlier post-pandemic years. Indeed, StanChart has noted that global oil demand has been setting a series of new all-time highs in the current year. 

StanChart reported that the largest demand gains in August came from Korea (219 kb/d), Italy (185 kb/d), Saudi Arabia (117 kb/d), Türkey (99 kb/d) and Spain (88 kb/d). StanChart has now revised its 2024 global demand growth estimate upwards to 1.45 mb/d, thanks to the bigger-than-expected growth in August."

I agree, and think that LNG may enjoy even more growth. 

[turbguy + 1,545]

On 11/21/2024 at 12:48 AM, specinho said:

I'm confused by contents of coal. 

If the assumption is: coal was formed millions of years ago by mainly fallen plants/ trees, the event must be a massive natural disaster like earthquake, volcanic eruption, etc. If they are found along the line of oil and gas, then they could be formed in about the same era, in the same event??

Next, they were covered quickly by magma and/ or lava and treated under high heat and pressure. Charcoal formed. Is there no unpolluted charcoal when coal is mined?

2. If assumption is made again. Charcoal was sealed with magma and lava. Anything that could be found in the liquid layer of earth content, could be found in coal. E.g. silica, alumina, minerals, trace elements and heavy metals. While coal is mined, those come out with it.

Not sure how is the situation? Magma and lava are likely very hard layer. They could be rocky, sandy or glassy? Could this layer be differentiated from much softer charcoal or coal beneath it?

Can any separation or refinement be done on this stage? If yes, instead of having 10 - 50% of coal, they could have more?

Coal tunnels in developing countries could collapse. Is there any possibility to change how coal is mined if separation could be done? For example, cut into chunk size the way rocks are cut, then separate hard lava layer from charcoal/coal, instead of pulverized coal before sending out.

Pulverized coal might have one disadvantage: the small size is cutting the air off when burnt in large quantity? Could this be the reason rocks, silica/ sand are not removed to increase space among powdered carbon particles?

Compound of heavy metal usually sink because they are heavy, right? When coal ash is dissolved in water, could adding EDTA efficient enough to clear potential toxic metal e.g. plumbum, arsenic, etc?

 

 

We really need a "question mark" reaction emoji for such postings. 

Adding more mined or manufactured "stuff" to neutralize "stuff" is insane (but could be profitable).

Coal formation theories are out there.

You have google.

Go look for it

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

5 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Dude, you're one stubborn mf'er. Oil still is KING and ICE vehicles are and will be 95% sales for the foreseeable future. So expect demand to go up if price of crude drops, and EV's will be suppressed even further if oil dips to the mid 60's WTI. You seem to not comprehend EV's cost more to operate than ICE. 103.5 barrels/daily and will climb from there. OPEC and IEA both mis-judged consumption last quarter and back stepped their thinking. 

You seem to have an arrogance about your knowledge of all things relating to Energy as you put it. You argue for the sake of arguing. You're a petty keyboard warrior and can't face the facts. You obviously are not retarded, just too much time on your hands. Maybe find another forum your more qualified to "learn us luddites" as notsosmart says.

I am very stubborn; my Corgi dog "Newton" is also very stubborn.  They say don't get a corgi unless you are stubborn.

Oil is still king, but if you look at history most monarchies fall. 

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,246]

17 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Oil is still king, but if you look at history most monarchies fall. 

It's a commodity. WTF you smokin' up there? Good Ganji?

[Ecocharger + 1,475]

On 11/22/2024 at 10:55 PM, TailingsPond said:

I am very stubborn; my Corgi dog "Newton" is also very stubborn.  They say don't get a corgi unless you are stubborn.

Oil is still king, but if you look at history most monarchies fall. 

There is only one King Oil, and some monarchies have lasted thousands of years. Thanks for the analogy.

Oil prices are currently being supported by the risks of major war.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Goldman-Sachs-Expects-Brent-Oil-to-Average-76-Per-Barrel-in-2025.html

"...there is an upside risk to prices in the near term, if the U.S. enforces stricter sanctions on the Iranian oil industry and exports, according to Goldman Sachs."

"Oil prices were on track to post a weekly gain after Russia shot a new kind of ballistic missile at Ukraine in the latest sign that the escalation there continues. The strike, featuring a hypersonic medium-range missile that has not been used before in warfare, came in response to a Ukrainian attack with U.S. and British ATACMS missiles on Russian territory."

Edited 5 hours ago by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

16 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

There is only one King Oil, and some monarchies have lasted thousands of years. Thanks for the analogy.

Oil prices are currently being pd by the risks of major war.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Goldman-Sachs-Expects-Brent-Oil-to-Average-76-Per-Barrel-in-2025.html

"...there is an upside risk to prices in the near term, if the U.S. enforces stricter sanctions on the Iranian oil industry and exports, according to Goldman Sachs."

"Oil prices were on track to post a weekly gain after Russia shot a new kind of ballistic missile at Ukraine in the latest sign that the escalation there continues. The strike, featuring a hypersonic medium-range missile that has not been used before in warfare, came in response to a Ukrainian attack with U.S. and British ATACMS missiles on Russian territory."

Still referencing Tsvetana Paraskova for "your" analysis?  Did she even study economics?

To be clear do you want a major war just to bump oil prices? 

You also mentioned "weekly gain" - funny because you recently said year long time scales were not long enough.

Edited 16 hours ago by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

On 11/20/2024 at 2:13 AM, Ecocharger said:

No, one year is not enough.

Funny, one week gains are enough when it comes to oil.

 

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

20 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

"Oil prices were on track to post a weekly gain after Russia shot a new kind of ballistic missile at Ukraine in the latest sign that the escalation there continues.

War mongering.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

25 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

There is only one King Oil, and some monarchies have lasted thousands of years. Thanks for the analogy.

No king has lasted for thousands of years.

You should realize that for much of human history we used no petroleum.

Edited 16 hours ago by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

On 11/23/2024 at 2:01 PM, Old-Ruffneck said:

It's a commodity. WTF you smokin' up there? Good Ganji?

You were the one that personified oil, not me.

"Oil still is KING "

Edited 16 hours ago by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,475]

11 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

No king has lasted for thousands of years.

You should realize that for much of human history we used no petroleum.

You should actually read the historical record.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/IMFs-Proposed-Carbon-Restrictions-Could-Have-Major-Economic-Repercussions.html

"Temperature records for hundreds of millions of years prove that warming periods are a mainstay of the Earth's climate history.  In comparison, our current era is one of the coldest, not the warmest.  Climate scientists ignore this data and use temperature records going back to the 1880s.  Meaning, their data is based on a mere 140 years of the Earth's history.

The current warming rate is not significant to other periods, nor is there any evidence that human activity is causing it.  Data on carbon levels of the past show that temperatures do not necessarily rise in tandem with carbon activity.  Carbon emissions are also far lower today than they have been in the past. The claim that carbon concentration due to human activity has a drastic influence on global temperatures (or weather) is absolutely unfounded.

"

It is clear from the records above that CO2 and earth temperature are anti-phasal.

This has been known for quite some time, but the data have been ignored in the interest of twisting science into a political tool.

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

5 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

You should actually read the historical record.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/IMFs-Proposed-Carbon-Restrictions-Could-Have-Major-Economic-Repercussions.html

I wasn't even mentioning climate change, try to keep up.

You should stop relying on the oilprice home page for your posts.  Try using your own words for a change. 

$68.94 WTI today fancy that.

Edited 31 minutes ago by TailingsPond