GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Jay McKinsey + 1,491]

2 hours ago, kshithij Sharma said:

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. 

 EVs are in demand despite all the anti EV marketing. Tesla spends $0 on marketing. So you don't have an argument. EVs useful purpose is to be a superior experience to ICE and they are on their way to successfully replacing antiquated ICE.

Diamonds are not a substitute for gold but EVs are a substitute for ICE.

Edited February 9, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

EVs are the least reliable vehicle type: Consumer Reports

STEPHEN EDELSTEINJANUARY 14, 2022600 COMMENTS

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1134740_evs-least-reliable-vehicle-type-problem-areas

[Jay McKinsey + 1,491]

17 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

EVs are the least reliable vehicle type: Consumer Reports

STEPHEN EDELSTEINJANUARY 14, 2022600 COMMENTS

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1134740_evs-least-reliable-vehicle-type-problem-areas

Anti EV marketing from an organisation backed by ICE and oil. My favorite part of the report was that they called out Tesla "reliability" for having mismatched paint! What a joke. Only one EV had problems to the EV drivetrain and that was the out of production Chevy Bolt. Everything else was for components also found in ICE cars, hmmm....

CR found high rates of owner satisfaction, indicating that many EV owners aren't too worried about reliability issues.

The same 2021 reliability survey also found that hybrids and plug-in hybrids cost less to maintain and repair. CR also noted that "most of these vehicles are built on proven systems," which could be an advantage when it comes to reliability.

Edited February 9, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

1 hour ago, Eric Gagen said:

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 it's 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. 

 

It is kinda funny, how once in a while there are an article about sources reporting that Gwar is getting thin. Followed by an avalanche of opposite reports that it is as good as new. The moment the Saudis pass the peak, they are over and done with.

They've got no secrets left, because Tema was there. This guy.

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

He's what I call a "hacker tourist" A walking national security threat of astronomical proportions without even knowing it. Claims to be the only Russian to have had visited all 193 countries in the world. This is almost true. Considering that

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

is not a country, but a place (Chagos Archipelago) annexed by UK, ethnically cleansed of local population and currently hosting US/UK Diego Garcia airbase. Tema is on a no-entry list there, so somebody else noticed.

This is what he dug up. Ever heard the story about US reinforcing the Saudi highways, so that transport aircraft full of military aid can land there in a pinch? Bullshit. They've got a modern 6-lane highway connecting Riadh to Mecca and Medina, but it is only open to Muslim pilgrims. The rest of the country has only got a single road shaped like a Greek capital Pi, with up being. North and legs running along the coasts.

It possibly only has one lane in either direction, throughout. How do the locals get to hidden oases they allegedly have? They take a large SUV and simply start driving where they want to go through the desert. Popular destinations contain vast tracts of trash, because the locals simply throw it out of the window. There is no provision to pick the trash up, so whatever the Saudis threw out of the window, is still out there littering the desert. Since the time of King Saudi, for all I know. Another good use for large SUVs is herding camels. You roll down the window and poke the camel with a stick. Problem solved!

The open stretch between two legs of the Pi are connected by a coast-to-coast rail link, carrying bomb trains loaded with petrochemicals. Obviously, game as soon as Houris receive moving target firmware upgrade out of Tehran.

Now, remember the time when the main Saudi refinery and all the attached storage was taken out? By alleged "drone attack"  Which is quite an understatement, considering what the "drones" were

https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1208062/meet-the-quds-1/

Quds means Jerusalem in Arabic. In its former life, a Soviet Kh-55, a solid superpower level asset from the 70-ties. Originally launched off a strategic bomber. Today, off a Yemeni pickup truck. All courtesy of independent and free country of Ukraine. The original's range was 2500km. The substitution of the original engine for a lighter Czech one likely lost some speed and gained range. So, we've got ourselves a Kh-55-ER. Can follow a preprogrammed route, hit waypoints, etc. Basically, a very close equivalent to American Tomahawk drone. So, the place got hit by 20 Tomahawks, of which only 2 were lost (to Oerlikon SkyGuard perimeter defense system controlling a bunch of CIWS robot guns) This very likely destroyed all the oil at this site. Did it change anything? I didn't notice.

From the above, we can conclude that the Saudis are very unlikely to keep their reserves on land. Because, a) They've got no infrastructure anyway, except for pipelines. b) They cannot defend a land site against skimming munitions. And it is actually official. The minimum effective attitude is cited as 200m.

On the other hand, it is still possible that what Patriot cannot, naval Aegis can. This make the safest place to store the oil on FSRO's moored in the Gulf, close to US warships. Incidentally, this is what everybody has been doing anyway! Gets the stuff loaded/unloaded faster.

Therefore, you can count all the Saudi reserves by simply observing all the tankers which sit motionless near Saudi coast. They got to be lots. The larger they are and less they move, the more storage-like. Incidentally, explains the armada of tankers sent to US shore to hang out there. Makes it hard to tell which ones are the Saudi anymore. With a local observer you can do even quicker than this. You can always tell by a tanker how full they are, they got special marks. The more oil, the higher they sit. The less oil, the more ballast water, which is denser than oil. Travelling "empty" is thus more expensive than full.

However, thanks to the 3-way tussle between US shale, Saudis and Russians we know their most sacred secret - "budget rule" equivalent amount. The price, at which the Saudi state budget turns from surplus to deficit. Turned out to be something like $73/brl, which is way high. So, Saudis need the oil to cost at least that much to break even. Probably is somewhat transient, due to getting into a dubious dick swinging contest with Apple Computer as to who's got the larger market cap, Apple or Aramco. For which purposes a very high dividend commitment for Aramco was made, rather untimely so. Anyhow, the "IMF budget rule" the Russian government implements causes the national budget to break even at an oil price no less than $43-something/brl ($44.20 this year) What if more? The Bank of Russia confiscates the extra profits. This means that in Russia, this is the average export price of oil for the year ahead. Or else. Noting for oil price to report on. What $90/brl. (It is actually interesting that they used to have a ticker for the Urals till very recently. What changed? For most of the benchmark's existence, it traded at a discount to WTI/Brent light crude. On par, lately, I think.

Does anybody who is not myself care to explain why is heavy crude traded at discount to light? Seems irrational at the first sight. After all, you can make full spectrum.of fuels from Urals - gasoline, kerosene and diesel. Only gasoline and lightest kerosene parts from light.

Another thing that fascinates me. Everybody is suddenly so excited about North Stream gas, yet entirely mum on the subject of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druzhba_pipeline and its various extension? How come? It is a much bigger business. Who is the Kremlin agent in the midst of civilized European nations? How is us imminently attacking Ukraine affects the future prospects of being in oil transit biz together?

Incidentally, Power of Siberia was simply added to an existing oil pipe called ESPO

https://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/projects/espopipeline/

Oilprice seems to have a separate benchmark for it still, dunno if it is heavy or light. Here are all of them

https://en.transneft.ru/pipelines/

Over 70,000 km of pipes for oil, which absolutely dwarfs the gas network. (Transneft is 100% government owned and has a near absolute monopoly on all oil transits. The only expectation seems to be KPK pipeline (Rosneft+Lukoil) which is how oil gets out of Kazakhstan. Does not do any exploration. Which, oddly, makes it satisfy the unbundling requirements of the EU's Third Package, no?

Or could it be due to variation of the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law

(which postulates that the value of any network is proportional to the square of the n

odes)

Fun fact of the day. There is a functional pipeline pumping ammonia from the town of Tolyatti in Russia, to Odessa. Over 6000km?!? Inexplicable were the ways of USSR

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

Plausibly deniable from the above, which says it only goes to Taman, a sleepy village without running water. Running ammonia though?

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

Appears to be identical with onramp to Crimean Bridge. Ooopsie-daisie. Anyhow, I digress. The Eurofags will, of course, be assimilated and potty-trained. What was going to save them? Lithium? Got lithium. It's just nobody has ever tried to find mine the stuff in Russia before. Sibur found some conventional rich brine in Irkutsk. Rosatom found an odd lithium-rich mineral on Kola which nobody previously considered an ore. Potentially, lithium reserves at about #3, behind Bolivia and Chile.

Now, I was kinda expecting that it would be Saudis who would be thrown under the bus, not US shale. Alas, too much debt. It is, however, not over yet. Mr. Sechin informs that complete eradication of those fuckers is impossible due to the unique property of US Permian basin - they can actually throttle and/or turn off a rig for a while and lay low. Usually, this does not work. The more annoying it is that it is specifically the Americans who refuse to participate in collective production planning, aka OPEC+. Which is not really Russia, Russia, Russia, but a block of following countries.

Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Brunei, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, Oman, Russia, South Sudan, and Sudan.

Note the presence of two Gulf  kingdoms and a remote Sultanate. Obviously having more faith in Russia than brothers in faith. Safe to say, OPEC+ is actually about selling oil, while OPEC alone is also about medieval Arab activities. Being the most maneuverable of the bunch, should it be the US shale guy who would be offering it as service. Like in electricity trade. Everybody else got base, they got peak. Worth some premium.

But of course, the US government has no meaningful way to affect how privately owned enterprises conduct their business. Except abroad. Because the Biden administration seems to have no qualms about demanding specific price targets from OPEC+ The capability of Yankee mind to reject any kind of self-reflection never ceases to amaze me

If the Saudi national budget is really balanced at $70+ still, they are royally screwed. US shale can easily survive that this price level indefinitely.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

3 hours 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.

Or if you got waste heat up the wazoo, for example next to a nuclear power plant?

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

5 hours ago, kshithij Sharma said:

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

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

The point is there are new discoveries all the time, your 1970's data is clearly a mile out of datem, surely you can see that??

[kshithij Sharma + 78]

9 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

It is kinda funny, how once in a while there are an article about sources reporting that Gwar is getting thin. Followed by an avalanche of opposite reports that it is as good as new. The moment the Saudis pass the peak, they are over and done with.

They've got no secrets left, because Tema was there. This guy.

Ghawar is getting depleted. Saudi minister himself has stated that Ghawar is undergoing EOR and its extraction level has increased to over 55% of oil in place. So, Ghawar production is indeed getting thin. Nevertheless it accounts to over 170GBL oil in place and 55+% will mean 95-100GBL can be extracted from it. Even if it produces 3 Mbpd oil, it can last 95-100 years. So, there is still a long way to go before it completely goes depleted.

9 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Or if you got waste heat up the wazoo, for example next to a nuclear power plant?

That is possible but is a safety hazard. Nuclear heat can't be diverted without increasing risk of safety

6 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

The point is there are new discoveries all the time, your 1970's data is clearly a mile out of datem, surely you can see that??

Well, USA is known for its thirst for oil and being predominantly a petrostate. USA was also in full panic mode after 1973 embargo. Also, by 1980, all the technology currently used in oil exploration had been invented and hence the exploration results were very accurate. So, I am pretty confident that more discoveries are unlikely in areas where USA had free hand in oil exploration as USA being a petrostate does a very thorough job when it comes to oil exploration.

[kshithij Sharma + 78]

10 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

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.

Tar sands crude quality is low but the low quality crude can be upgraded by hydrogenation or further cracked to obtain better quality fuel. All this can be done using the heat from residue (petcoke/coal tar) obtained in the process. Oil shale has the key disadvantage of having very low EROI. Also, unlike tar sands, oil shale leaves behind lot of residue stones which need to be transported for dumping.

In general, EROI of 1.1 is considered feasibility threshold including energy needed for transporting, processing and upstream activity. Coal liquefaction has EROI of 1.8, tar sands have EROI 2.5 while oil shale has EROI less than 1.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

37 minutes ago, kshithij Sharma said:

Also, by 1980, all the technology currently used in oil exploration had been invented and hence the exploration results were very accurate. So, I am pretty confident that more discoveries are unlikely in areas where USA had free hand in oil exploration as USA being a petrostate does a very thorough job when it comes to oil exploration.

Really?

I'm not an oil man nor am I American but I doubt the above statement is in any way accurate. I will leave it to those oilmen that have the experience in this.

One thing I would say is you started by saying oil would run out in the next decade or so and much later in Russia etc. However we have had shale and that wasnt accounted for back in 1970 so that alone has added a very large percentage of US oil production in the last few years that wouldnt have been factored in back then.

i still think youre way off on your predictions, but we clearly arent going to agree on this so I'll leave it there.

[Ecocharger + 1,485]

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

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.

 ICE auto makers do not recall more vehicles than they produce, only Tesla.

You really are numerically overwhelmed on this issue, Jay.

[Ecocharger + 1,485]

Oil prices have nowhere to go but up.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/TotalEnergies-High-Oil-Prices-Are-Here-To-Stay.html

"TotalEnergies CEO Pouyanné: I've no good news to deliver, oil prices will remain high.

Continuously growing global oil demand amid muted new investment in production will keep oil prices elevated.

Pouyanné's view that oil prices will remain high is shared by a large number of other industry executives, as well as analysts."

Edited February 9, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, kshithij Sharma said:

Tar sands crude quality is low but the low quality crude can be upgraded by hydrogenation or further cracked to obtain better quality fuel. All this can be done using the heat from residue (petcoke/coal tar) obtained in the process. Oil shale has the key disadvantage of having very low EROI. Also, unlike tar sands, oil shale leaves behind lot of residue stones which need to be transported for dumping.

In general, EROI of 1.1 is considered feasibility threshold including energy needed for transporting, processing and upstream activity. Coal liquefaction has EROI of 1.8, tar sands have EROI 2.5 while oil shale has EROI less than 1.

I think your EROI numbers might be a bit on the low side, but your main point is correct - oil shale sucks. 

Cracking and hydrogenation for tar sand crude costs money, which is one of the reasons why tar sand derived oil sells at a discount (the others being it's need for diluent or heated flowlines for transport, and the high amounts of heavy metals and sulfer as contaminants)

Tar sands have  lot of residue as well, at least where it is mined open pit - they have to dispose of all the 'washed' sand that is left over.  

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, kshithij Sharma said:

Ghawar is getting depleted. Saudi minister himself has stated that Ghawar is undergoing EOR and its extraction level has increased to over 55% of oil in place. So, Ghawar production is indeed getting thin. Nevertheless it accounts to over 170GBL oil in place and 55+% will mean 95-100GBL can be extracted from it. Even if it produces 3 Mbpd oil, it can last 95-100 years. So, there is still a long way to go before it completely goes depleted.

SNIP

I'll talk about Ghawar here, then talk about the oil exploration bit in a different response.

 

The estimates you give for Ghawar neglect a bunch of different things.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghawar_Field  the amount of oil initially in place was originally estimated at 170GBL.   at 55% recovery, this means 94 GBL can be recovered.  However the production to date has been ~ 100 GBL, meaning that there is nothing left.  Current production rates are ~ 3.0 MBL a day, leaving negative 6 years of reserves left.  Obviously that isn't right, and the assessment of Ghawar field having 170 GBL of oil in place hasn't readily been disputed by anyone.  

 

Now here is where things get tricky. http://energy-cg.com/OPEC/SaudiArabia/OPEC_SaudiArabia_Ghawar.html This all hinges the recovery factor of 55% being correct, and clearly it isn't.  .Obviously there is at least SOME basis for the upgrade - otherwise the field would already be depleted, since 55% recovery of 170 GBL yields only 93 GBL of producable oil . It may be possible that through a combination of excellent reservoir characteristics, good quality water and gas flooding to do better than 55% recovery - if ever there were a field where there is value in being thorough in doing these things right,  this is the one, so maybe and ARAMCO is claiming they will achieve 75% recovery - that would suggest that total reserves started at 128 GBL, leaving 28 left to be produced right now, which would last 28 years at 3 million bbls a day.  but ARAMCO claims that Ghawar has about 45 GBL left  https://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/projects/ghawar-oil-field/#:~:text=Ghawar reservoir details&text=The field was estimated to,reserves as at December 2018.  in liquid oil at the present time - for that to be correct, they would have to get a recovery factor of 87% and that is physically impossible based on the permeability of the rock, residual oil saturation caused by contrasting viscosity versus the injected water and gas, and other related factors.  

However, historically nobody has ever even gotten to 75% recovery of the oil in place for a carbonate reservoir.  It has been done in a few special cases in some sandstones, but never in a carbonate.  Reality suggests that 75%recovery is more like an ambitious stretch objective than a reasonable number - i.e. good to plan to try to achieve, but probably not achievable in practice.  Maybe they will get really close and get 70%, which is 93% of conformance with the plan - astonishing level of performance in the highly uncertain world of reservoir engineering.  Sounds great, until you realize that if that is the case, the remaining reserves at Ghawar are only 19 GBL - 19 years of production.  That would be a huge difference from the 'back of the envelope' estimate of 28 GBL or the official number of 45 GBL.  

 

 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

2 hours ago, kshithij Sharma said:

SNIP

Well, USA is known for its thirst for oil and being predominantly a petrostate. USA was also in full panic mode after 1973 embargo. Also, by 1980, all the technology currently used in oil exploration had been invented and hence the exploration results were very accurate. So, I am pretty confident that more discoveries are unlikely in areas where USA had free hand in oil exploration as USA being a petrostate does a very thorough job when it comes to oil exploration.

I hate to break it to you, but almost NONE of the technology currently used for oil exploration existed in 1980.  In fact some of it was not even available in embryonic or early state.

The first steps are always surface geology, and those techniques have been well understood since at least the 1970's (earlier techniques were hampered by the lack of a whole earth model utilizing plate tectonics) 

The next step is a basin model for large scale geostratigraphy utilizing 2d seismic techniques and shallow boreholes.  2d seismic has been around for a long time, but the sensors and computer systems required to gather and analyze the data in a coherent way by modern standards did not finish getting developed until the mid 1990's when computers finally had sufficient power to use all the data which was gathered.  2d seismic data gathered before this time is considered to be of such poor quality by modern standards that if you want to do an assessment, you have to start over with gathering fresh data and doing a new analysis.  

The key for oil exploration in the modern day is high resolution 3d seismic, with highly quality data interpretation produced through very powerful computer systems. The capacity to do this did not exist until the mid 2000's.  A critical feature of being able to gather seismic data is the ability to image below salt layers and unconformities.  This didn't really exist until the late 2000's and is still being developed today.  

Development of seismic imaging techniques

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2005.00252.x

The next step is to drill some wells, and here the critical parameters are log data and interpretation.  Traditionally wells were drilled,  THEN logged, but a massive advance was the introduction of logging while drilling systems.  Not only did these allow data to be captured immediatly instead of after everything was done, but they allow full data capture from uphole sections of the well which normal logging conducted after the drilling is completed cannot achieve.  This is critical to exploration success because all the data can be integrated with the basin scale geostratigraphy and 3d seismic to fill in the details and calibrate the models.  Once again this is very processor intensive, and cannot be done without high speed computers, which didn't exist yet in 1980.  The tools themselves had a VERY long development process running from the 1960's to the late 1980's.  It wasn't until the early 1990's that they were available for use on a regular basis, and even then they were extremely expensive. It took until the mid 2000's that they were low enough cost to use on a regular basis.  

TLDR:  Most of the modern tools used for the assessment of oil and gas didn't exist until the late 1990's and in some cases another 10 years after that.  Any assessment or exploration performed prior to the late 1990s' is so vague and unreliable by modern standards that it will have to be conducted again using modern tools and techniques before it can be used.  

[Jay McKinsey + 1,491]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

 ICE auto makers do not recall more vehicles than they produce, only Tesla.

You really are numerically overwhelmed on this issue, Jay.

Wrong again, both GM and Ford recalled more cars last year than they produced:

GM, Ford Take Top Spots for the Most Auto Recalls in 2021

In a busy year for auto recalls, GM and Ford took the top spots for most vehicles recalled and most total recalls, respectively, according to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

A total of 8 million GM vehicles were determined to be potentially affected by recall reports, while Ford finished in second place with 5.4 million, the Detroit Free Press reports. 

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/auto-news/gm-ford-take-top-spots-for-the-most-auto-recalls-in-2021/

Meanwhile EV sales continue to skyrocket.

Edited February 9, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,485]

19 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Wrong again:

GM, Ford Take Top Spots for the Most Auto Recalls in 2021

In a busy year for auto recalls, GM and Ford took the top spots for most vehicles recalled and most total recalls, respectively, according to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

A total of 8 million GM vehicles were determined to be potentially affected by recall reports, while Ford finished in second place with 5.4 million, the Detroit Free Press reports. 

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/auto-news/gm-ford-take-top-spots-for-the-most-auto-recalls-in-2021/

Meanwhile EV sales continue to skyrocket.

Wrong again, Jay, GM and Ford recalls are only a tiny percentage of production, whereas for Tesla the recall rate as a proportion of production was over 100%....gigantic advantage for the ICE producers over Tesla.

Those numbers are just too much for some people to handle.

Edited February 9, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,491]

26 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Wrong again, Jay, GM and Ford recalls are only a tiny percentage of production, whereas for Tesla the recall rate as a proportion of production was over 100%....gigantic advantage for the ICE producers over Tesla.

Those numbers are just too much for some people to handle.

You are the dumb. Someday you might learn to do research.

GM globally produced 6.3M but they recalled 8M.

https://media.gm.com/content/dam/Media/gmcom/investor/2022/janhttps://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North America/US/2022/02/03/financials-fy-ford-21.pdfq4-earnings-deck-and-cy-2021.pdf

 

Ford global production last year was less than 4M but they recalled 5.4M. https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North America/US/2022/02/03/financials-fy-ford-21.pdf

 

A total of 8 million GM vehicles were determined to be potentially affected by recall reports, while Ford finished in second place with 5.4 million, the Detroit Free Press reports. 

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/auto-news/gm-ford-take-top-spots-for-the-most-auto-recalls-in-2021/

 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,491]

Tesla Model Y now the second best selling car in California.

Plug in vehicles now at 12.8% market share.

https://www.cncda.org/wp-content/uploads/Cal-Covering-4Q-21.pdf

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Wrong again, Jay, GM and Ford recalls are only a tiny percentage of production, whereas for Tesla the recall rate as a proportion of production was over 100%....gigantic advantage for the ICE producers over Tesla.

Those numbers are just too much for some people to handle.

Have you ever owned a vehicle that was subject to a recall?  If you purchased a vehicle in the last 10 years or so, I can answer that for you, because the answer is yes.  The modern recall system issues notices for fixes, upgrades, tweaks, etc. on a continuous basis.  what's critical to understand is that they come in 4 (maybe more) categories and flavors

 

1: You are in danger, or something expensive is going to break unexpectedly  and if you don't do this, something bad could happen.  This is what most people think of when they hear the word recall.  Fortunately they are rare

2: Something on the vehicle sucks, and we will give you a notification about it.  If it ever breaks, you can bring it to a dealership, or authorized service place, and they will fix it for free.  Also in the range of things that most people think of as a recall but not as serious.

but there are 2 other categories, which most people who haven't purchased a new vehicle recently aren't aware of (used cars don't count, because the chain of ownership is often lost in the process)

3: Something on the vehicle isn't quite right, but it fails very rarely.  If it ever does break, it will be repaired for free - a notification may or may not be made 

4: We found something minor (or it may be an upgrade) the next time the vehicle is in for service at the dealership or an authorized service center, we will let you know that it's an option for us to do the thing for free, either during your scheduled visit, or some other time when you come back.

 

Most people don't think of things in categories 3 and 4 as OMG a recall! but they are common - most vehicles will have several items that fall into one of these two categories during their lifetimes come up.  And if all you do is count recall rates, they all show up.  

[Ecocharger + 1,485]

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You are the dumb. Someday you might learn to do research.

GM globally produced 6.3M but they recalled 8M.

https://media.gm.com/content/dam/Media/gmcom/investor/2022/janhttps://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North America/US/2022/02/03/financials-fy-ford-21.pdfq4-earnings-deck-and-cy-2021.pdf

 

Ford global production last year was less than 4M but they recalled 5.4M. https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North America/US/2022/02/03/financials-fy-ford-21.pdf

 

A total of 8 million GM vehicles were determined to be potentially affected by recall reports, while Ford finished in second place with 5.4 million, the Detroit Free Press reports. 

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/auto-news/gm-ford-take-top-spots-for-the-most-auto-recalls-in-2021/

 

That still puts Tesla below the others.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,491]

9 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

That still puts Tesla below the others.

Prove it. You clearly have no knowledge of how many cars are produced or how many recalls occur. You are just the dumb who spouts nonsense and misinformation.

Edited February 9, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,485]

41 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Prove it. You clearly have no knowledge of how many cars are produced or how many recalls occur. You are just the dumb who spouts nonsense and misinformation.

We posted the material above, Jay, go back and read it again, think before you speak.

[Ecocharger + 1,485]

Now we have reached desperation time, the Biden & Co. folks are squawking in pain for new oil supplies to come online. What is this picture? The same people who declared war on oil are now wailing for more oil...could anything be more absurd?

And now the administration is attempting to recycle the old canards about market-fixing, allegations which have already been proven to be empty and (excuse the term) trumped up.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/White-House-No-Oil-Producer-Should-Hold-Back-Supply-As-Oil-Hits-90.html

"After a correction due to the initial market panic about the Omicron variant, oil prices returned to rally and have gained around 20 percent since the start of the year. WTI crude prices hit $90 a barrel last week, for the first time since 2014, and sent American gasoline prices higher.  

On Wednesday, the national average price of regular gasoline was $3.469 a gallon, AAA data shows—that’s the highest since 2014 and $1 a gallon higher than this time last year.

Apart from talks with oil-producing and oil-consuming nations, the U.S. is “looking at every legal and regulatory authority we have available to ensure consumers are protected,” Psaki said on Tuesday. 

“That means responding to any sign of manipulation in the oil commodities markets or gauging [gouging] at the pump,” the press secretary added."

Edited February 9, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,491]

35 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

We posted the material above, Jay, go back and read it again, think before you speak.

No you most certainly did not moron. Prove me wrong by posting it again. What EWO posted was about Consumer Reports reliability, it said nothing about recalls. But then you are too dumb to know the difference aren't you?

In fact Tesla recalls in 2021 were less than their 2021 production.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

U.S. opens probe into 30 million vehicles over air bag inflators

• The new investigation includes vehicles assembled by Honda, Ford, Toyota, General Motors, Nissan, Subaru, Tesla, Ferrari, Mazda, Daimler, BMW, Chrysler, Porsche, Jaguar Land Rover and others.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/20/us-opens-probe-into-30-million-vehicles-over-air-bag-inflators.html