GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

Remember when you guys thought Tesla was not worth a trillion?  You are right, today it broke 1.11T

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=tesla+stock

Meanwhile WTI falls to $68.86

 

 

Edited December 4 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

4 hours ago, Spuds McKenzie said:

The Green New Deal isn’t even a real thing. 
 
 The BS propaganda thread that would not die. 
 
 Here we are in Dec 2024 - How’s the US oil production doing? …Breaking world records. 
 
 How many federal leases did Biden approve? …more than right wing radical white collar criminal insurrectionist Donald. 
 

 How will reality TV actor Donald’s idiotic campaign slogan of cutting oil prices by 40% impact the US oil industry?…it would devastate profits, new exploration and will lead to massive industry layoffs. 

 How’s full time golfer Donald’s campaign slogan of Drill Baby Drill gonna go? …it’s not. It’s already happening under a Democratic President. 

 

The markets determine prices, not the White House.

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

8 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/OPEC-Secrecy-Isnt-Helping-Its-Exit-Strategy-from-Production-Cuts.html

You can also cross Tsvetana Paraskova off your reference list.

Soon you won't have anybody to write or think for you.

 

Production "cuts" are not reductions if the output goes up... I guess that is too much for you to handle.

"Spot premiums for Russia's Far East ESPO Blend crude oil shipments to China rose to their highest since the Ukraine war broke out in 2022 on robust winter demand and as prices for rival grades from Iran firmed, three trade sources said on Tuesday.

ESPO Blend cargoes loading in January traded at premiums of about $1.30 to $1.50 per barrel against ICE Brent on delivered ex-ship (DES) China basis, the sources told Reuters, rising from premiums of $1 per barrel for cargoes loading in November and December."

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

8 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

You know that China and India have like billions more people than the USA right?  Not really a fair comparison.

I like how the author noted oil has been in decline for 20 years.  

 

It is fair, looking at future expectations of the source of CO2.

You seem to have a problem with the real world, bud. Wars do happen and that affects demand for commodities. Welcome to the real world.

The new nominee for energy secretary is a realist.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Chris-Wrights-Nomination-A-Challenge-to-Conventional-Climate-Wisdom.html

"Wright’s approach mirrors a school of thought that challenges the economic feasibility of extreme climate measures. This group may argue that measures like carbon taxes and green energy subsidies disproportionately burden economies and lower-income populations without guaranteed benefits."

"Lastly, some challenge the notion that proposed solutions will be effective or equitable. They argue that the costs and disruptions associated with transitioning to renewable energy or implementing climate policies might outweigh the benefits, particularly when the scale of global emissions reductions needed seems daunting and the efforts of developed nations might be offset by rising emissions in developing economies."

 

"

Top Three CO2 Emitters. Robert Rapier

China, the U.S., and India are the world’s top three carbon emitters. U.S. emissions since 1990 have declined, especially since the early days of the fracking boom about 20 years ago. Over the past decade, U.S. emissions have fallen at an average annual rate of 0.9%.

China’s emissions, on the other hand, have grown rapidly. Since 1990, China’s emissions have increased by a factor of five. In the process, China surpassed the U.S. as the world’s largest carbon emitter."

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

8 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

 I'm glad you are backing a realist. You should read articles before posting links. You are a climate denier, he is not.

"Wright acknowledges that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas contributing to atmospheric warming."

"Chris Wright’s views highlight the tension between environmental goals and economic considerations. While critics may label him a skeptic, his acknowledgment of carbon dioxide’s role in global warming distinguishes him from outright deniers."

I am not a climate denier, the people who rely on incomplete climate models are the climate deniers. It is necessary to get the science right before spouting off.

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

I am not a climate denier, the people who rely on incomplete climate models are the climate deniers.

You don't form any independent thoughts.  You promoted Chris Wright’s views - not me.

Do you understand that you just posted a link supporting him and his "realist" views?

You can deny the OPEC production cuts but just stop referencing the authors who discuss them.  Either they are stupid for mentioning cuts or you are stupid for listening to them.

Irina Slav and Tsvetana Paraskova reference production cuts so no more using their words.

 

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,257]

10 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

You know that China and India have like billions more people than the USA right?  Not really a fair comparison.

I like how the author noted oil has been in decline for 20 years.  

 

How in the hell did the author note oil has been in decline??  Certainly your not that ignorant to believe that statement. Oil has risen "consumption" since the early 60's. We now surpassed 103 mmb/d and still in upward trajectory. Maybe Trump is on to something, make Canada the 51'st state, lol. Poor Trudeau just didn't know what to say..... lmfao

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The markets determine prices, not the White House.

Some of the regular dimwits here think the POTUS elect will effect the markets.

FYI the markets say Tesla is on the rise and oil is on the way down.

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,257]

1 minute ago, TailingsPond said:

FYI the markets say Tesla is on the rise and oil is on the way down.

Totally wrong dude, you're pissin' in the wind now. Oil is still going up. You're just slow to catch on.

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

9 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

How in the hell did the author note oil has been in decline??  Certainly your not that ignorant to believe that statement. Oil has risen "consumption" since the early 60's. We now surpassed 103 mmb/d and still in upward trajectory. Maybe Trump is on to something, make Canada the 51'st state, lol. Poor Trudeau just didn't know what to say..... lmfao

The author used words and wrote:
"Over the past decade, U.S. emissions have fallen at an average annual rate of 0.9%."

 You do not get falling emissions without falling consumption.

Not my words, not my link. Take it up with the author of the link the failed economist posted.

Edited December 5 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

5 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Totally wrong dude, you're pissin' in the wind now. Oil is still going up. You're just slow to catch on.

Look at the graphs man.

WTI is $68.72 and oil is down from one year ago ($71.24) -5.6%

Down is not up.

Try harder.

 

Edited December 5 by TailingsPond

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,257]

1 minute ago, TailingsPond said:

The author wrote
"Over the past decade, U.S. emissions have fallen at an average annual rate of 0.9%."

 You do not get falling emissions without falling consumption.

Not my words, not my link. Take it up with the author of the link the failed economist posted.

You posted so you obviously believe the author. Ya just aint too f**k'n smart believing all the trash writers. You tell Eco to use his own words, I suggest you take your own advise.

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

1 minute ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

You posted so you obviously believe the author.

No that was ecochargers link,

Edited December 5 by TailingsPond

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,257]

2 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Look at the graphs man.

WTI is $68.72 and oil is down from one year ago ($71.24) -5.6%

Down is not up.

Try harder.

 

I don't care about price of oil. You might, but production is still on the rise worldwide. 

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The new nominee for energy secretary is a realist.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Chris-Wrights-Nomination-A-Challenge-to-Conventional-Climate-Wisdom.html

 

See old ruffy? It was the failed economist who posted that trash.

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

16 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

I don't care about price of oil. You might, but production is still on the rise worldwide. 

People with skin in the game care.

So many here spout off about market pressures and the future of energy but have no stakes - therefore they have no votes in the dollar voting system of economics.

I never claimed total global production didn't rise, I - and others - wrote that OPEC has production curtailment in place.

Edited December 5 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

18 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

You posted so you obviously believe the author. Ya just aint too f**k'n smart believing all the trash writers. You tell Eco to use his own words, I suggest you take your own advise.

Too funny, try to keep up. I was mocking eco's dumb link - not supporting it.  Tell eco to stop using the trash writers as his words.

He straight out can't use Irina Slav or Tsvetana Paraskova if he wants to pretend there are no production cuts.

 

 

Edited December 5 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Oil-Prices-Predicted-to-Plummet-Below-60-Under-Trump.html

The survey of 26 bankers showed that they expect WTI prices to drop to $58.62 a barrel by 2027

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,257]

59 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Oil-Prices-Predicted-to-Plummet-Below-60-Under-Trump.html

The survey of 26 bankers showed that they expect WTI prices to drop to $58.62 a barrel by 2027

Don't believe everything you read. So in say 14 months these folks "guessing" that crude be below 60???? Good deal, The money I will save in fuel will be back to where realistic prices should be. But don't hold your breath, too many variables between now and Feb 27.

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,257]

1 hour ago, TailingsPond said:

People with skin in the game care.

So many here spout off about market pressures and the future of energy but have no stakes - therefore they have no votes in the dollar voting system of economics.

I never claimed total global production didn't rise, I - and others - wrote that OPEC has production curtailment in place.

Slippery slope cutting back when so many other countries are increasing production. They will lose the battle of wills. In 10 years OPEC+ will probably be insignificant as too many other NON-OPEC producers are ramping up production. It's happening now, and in 3 years time Argentina and Guyana, Suriname, Alaska will be picking up any cuts that OPEC keeps trying to enforce, many are still cheating so??

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

13 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Slippery slope cutting back when so many other countries are increasing production. They will lose the battle of wills. In 10 years OPEC+ will probably be insignificant as too many other NON-OPEC producers are ramping up production. It's happening now, and in 3 years time Argentina and Guyana, Suriname, Alaska will be picking up any cuts that OPEC keeps trying to enforce, many are still cheating so??

I just want people here to accept the reality that oil production is currently being artificially reduced. It is market manipulation, oil is fundamentally worth even less than its current low market price.

The resident failed economist continues to deny that reality. You seem to accept that they are cutting back.

In other news Tesla jumped another 3% in one day.  Market cap now 1.16T.   They are making close to 400 billion a day recently.

Resident morons will say Tesla is suffering. Yet funny, I don't have to wait 3 years to see their success.  Not an "any year now" thing. 

Edited December 5 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

14 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Don't believe everything you read. So in say 14 months these folks "guessing" that crude be below 60???? Good deal, The money I will save in fuel will be back to where realistic prices should be. But don't hold your breath, too many variables between now and Feb 27.

Your other post mentioned a 3 year time frame.

Oil is in decline and you like that because it saves on fuel costs. The oil industry does not like it.

The largest oil company in the world (Saudi Aramco) has a valuation of 1.98T.  At the rate Tesla is going they will surpass them within a year or two.

The second largest oil company (Exxon) is worth about half of Tesla at 706B.

People just need to follow the money.  The money is going electric.  Even Berkshire Hathway of Warren Buffett fame has less money than Tesla.

Edited December 5 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

16 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

You don't form any independent thoughts.  You promoted Chris Wright’s views - not me.

Do you understand that you just posted a link supporting him and his "realist" views?

You can deny the OPEC production cuts but just stop referencing the authors who discuss them.  Either they are stupid for mentioning cuts or you are stupid for listening to them.

Irina Slav and Tsvetana Paraskova reference production cuts so no more using their words.

 

You think that an increase in production is a production "cut"? That is a type of logic about which I would prefer not to comment.

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

16 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

The author used words and wrote:
"Over the past decade, U.S. emissions have fallen at an average annual rate of 0.9%."

 You do not get falling emissions without falling consumption.

Not my words, not my link. Take it up with the author of the link the failed economist posted.

Your lack of logical application beggars description, of course production and demand for oil has increased.

You feel okay today, bud?

Edited December 5 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

You think that an increase in production is a production "cut"? That is a type of logic about which I would prefer not to comment.

It is less than they could produce, therefore a cut.  You don't have to take my word for it.  News sites everywhere discuss the reality of the production curtailments.

If you still do not agree, then do not reference the Oilprice writers who discuss the OPEC cuts regularly.  You can't claim they are stupid and a valid source of information at the same time.  Heck just don't reference the site at all as clearly the editors disagree with your "analysis."

 

Edited December 5 by TailingsPond