U.S. - Saudi Arabia: President Trump Says Saudi Arabia's King Wouldn't Survive "Two Weeks" Without U.S. Backing

(edited)

On 10/8/2018 at 10:37 AM, Dennis Coyne said:

I agree we will not "run out of energy", but the illusion that the US will become a net exporter of crude oil and petroleum products, is incorrect.

We might export natural gas, if our consumption of natural gas does not increase as rapidly as shale gas output, but as can be seen from my chart we will see roughly a 3 Mb/d decrease in US tight oil output from 2022 to 2030, and another 2.2 Mb/d decrease in tight oil output to 2035, an updated chart in comment above.

  

 

I don't generally assume projections of anything are correct, but for the sake of argument, let's assume US LTO goes exactly as your chart predicts.  I would still bet on US net oil exports because costs are falling for all oil resources, fuel-switching is already happening, there are always up-and-coming extraction technologies, and we've only scratched the surface on energy efficiency.  I would expect US demand to decline even as our overall supplies increase.  To wit:

- Curious as to how auto companies could meet fuel economy mandates, I looked up all of the proven technologies trickling into automobiles.   This isn't future tech; it's being done right now.  When these technologies are implemented, a 20-40% decrease in fuel consumption out of a conventional automobile is trivial.  Add in hybrid technology, and that drops even further.

- EV's will take off, and they will have an effect on oil demand disproportionate to their numbers.  The reason for this is that the most economical use case for an EV is when it's run at maximum capacity.  Delivery vehicles, taxis, ride-sharing, people with long commutes, etc are already economical cases for EV's.  Class-8 trucks running 200-500 miles/day, which represents the majority of trucking miles, will also be economical.  There's no technological barrier to building them and companies are working on it right now; it's only a matter of time.  These high-consumption use cases will electrify first.  This alone could halt - if not put a dent in - oil demand. 

- America simultaneously has problems with fuel demand, ever-growing landfills, and waste products from various industries.  The anything-to-liquids plants I mentioned will first be used to consume waste.  This is proven technology, and it's economical today because the plants profit both from tipping fees and from oil production.  Curious about this, I checked to see if anyone had estimated the amount of waste generated worldwide.  They had; the world's waste products are equivalent to approximately 30MMbpd of oil - nearly a third of world oil demand.  Granted, the world won't convert all of that, but it will certainly make an impact - esp. in the US where we generate so much waste. 

- Oil and natural gas prices have diverged, creating an opportunity for arbitrage.  Back in 2008 when oil prices peaked, there were plants to convert nat gas to oil.  The plans were only scrapped because oil prices tanked.  Either an increase in oil prices or an improvement in anything-to-liquids technology could revive those plans.

- LTO isn't the only resource that will benefit from improved technology.  My understanding is that oil companies are using knowledge gained to improve all operations, which brings with it the potential for production increases across all resources.

- There are untapped oil reserves.  Utah has its own type of oil sands; technology to extract it is already in the pilot production plant stage.  It's not proven, but there's some probability it will succeed. 

- The next-gen FT plants I mention have only one new technology: improved catalysts.  This technology is plausible because our ability to design & manufacture catalysts has dramatically improved with modern supercomputers, on which we can perform engineering analyses that were previously impossible.  That's only half of the equation though.  The other half is that they're scaling down the plants.  Much of the cost of a large plant is in the financing.  It takes many years to build, during which you accrue interest, before you make a dime off it.  If you build smaller plants - as Nucor started doing with steel decades ago - you slash costs w/o a single technological improvement.  As a bonus, smaller plants can be economically sited in a wider variety of locations.  This is not pie-in-the-sky stuff; it's application of simple, proven principles. 

So there are multiple ways to increase supply, multiple ways to decrease demand, and many players in the market.  That complexity decreases my confidence in simple projections and increases my confidence that, even if LTO fails, people will find a way. 

As for the price of oil, there's an interesting link between efficiency and prices: the more efficient our economy becomes, the higher prices we can tolerate.  We're doing just fine at $80/bbl.  In another 10 years, our GDP/BTU could easily improve 30%, at which point $100+/bbl oil will have less effect than $80/bbl oil has today.  That trend will continue.  At some point, it will be cheaper to seek marginal domestic resources than it will to police the world.  That's the tipping point.  When we have economical alternatives to OPEC's nonsense, we'll throw them to the wolves and mind our own business.  Without us footing the security bill, Europe et al may find it cheaper to buy from stable nations - of which we're one.

Edited by mthebold
Typo. Another typo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

Arabs are the reason for USA Petrodollar. So, securing Arab support by getting muslim refugees is the idea of merkel. Otherwise, Japan also has low fertility, they don't get any refugees. Germany took very little muslims before that and only in key areas, not wholesale like in case of refugees. This impresses Arabs, not Russia.

Merkel did take Muslim refugees before the Arabs. You will notice I mentioned they were taking Turkish workers in before the Arabs, Turkey is 98% Muslim, and there is a large Turkish population in Germany from all the previous migration, my drinking buddy when I worked there was a Turk. Japan is probably the most racist country in the world allowing immigrants to replace the missing generations is not on the agenda, there they are using automation to prolong workers ability to work and substitute for humans rather than have a labour shortage. They are very hot on robotics for that reason.

4 hours ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

Obama was an arab plant and so was Hillary clinton. This should have been clear to you. Otherwise, what was Obama's credentials at the age of 44 to become president? Weren't there more experienced people? Also, since Merkel had long ruling time, she has consolidated power and has reduced American influence greatly.

I dont indulge in conspiracy theories that there is no evidence off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

12 hours ago, jaycee said:

Merkel did take Muslim refugees before the Arabs. You will notice I mentioned they were taking Turkish workers in before the Arabs, Turkey is 98% Muslim, and there is a large Turkish population in Germany from all the previous migration, my drinking buddy when I worked there was a Turk. Japan is probably the most racist country in the world allowing immigrants to replace the missing generations is not on the agenda, there they are using automation to prolong workers ability to work and substitute for humans rather than have a labour shortage. They are very hot on robotics for that reason.

I dont indulge in conspiracy theories that there is no evidence off.

Turks back then were highly deislamised by Atatturk and USA sponsored coups of islamic govts. Very few had expected Erdogan to come and change the situation. Kazhakstan, Kyrgyzstan also had muslims but were deislamised. These people tended to drink alcohol, indulge in non-islamic practices very regularly and even did not consider themselves to be muslims in many cases. Moreover, the population of muslims in Germany was around 4% in 2010 which was minimal. Many turks had given up islam while in germany. However, the refugees were hardcore muslims and had no intent of assimilating or giving up Islam.

Your idea is that whatever is officially told is true even if tehre is no evidence but any other theory is conspiracy theory is absurd. Is there any evidence to say that Obama was a worthy person to become president? What were his credentials? Is the election based on voting by 100% informed people or just votes by bunch of people who do what they are told to do?

Edited by Bhimsen Pachawry
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

Turks back then were highly deislamised by Atatturk and USA sponsored coups of islamic govts. Very few had expected Erdogan to come and change the situation. Kazhakstan, Kyrgyzstan also had muslims but were deislamised. These people tended to drink alcohol, indulge in non-islamic practices very regularly and even did not consider themselves to be muslims in many cases. Moreover, the population of muslims in Germany was around 4% in 2010 which was minimal. Many turks had given up islam while in germany. However, the refugees were hardcore muslims and had no intent of assimilating or giving up Islam.

You said there were no Islamic migration to Germany I point out Turks are Islamic your say not Islamic enough. I am tired of discussing with you I point out facts and you say that's not what you meant this  happens everytime. What you type is never what you mean so discussing any point is..... pointless.

 

9 minutes ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

Your idea is that whatever is officially told is true even if tehre is no evidence but any other theory is conspiracy theory is absurd. Is there any evidence to say that Obama was a worthy person to become president? What were his credentials? Is the election based on voting by 100% informed people or just votes by bunch of people who do what they are told to do?

I am the least likely person to believe that what I hear officially your assumption I only believe official news channels is a straw man argument. What I said in my previous post is there is no proof of your theory which is a reasonable suggestion otherwise I would have to believe any lie a liar comes up with.  How about me suggesting there is a big spaghetti monster in the sky that nobody can see, just because there is no proof does not make it untrue according to your rational. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, mthebold said:

I don't generally assume projections of anything are correct, but for the sake of argument, let's assume US LTO goes exactly as your chart predicts.  I would still bet on US net oil exports because costs are falling for all oil resources, fuel-switching is already happening, there are always up-and-coming extraction technologies, and we've only scratched the surface on energy efficiency.  I would expect US demand to decline even as our overall supplies increase.  To wit:

- Curious as to how auto companies could meet fuel economy mandates, I looked up all of the proven technologies trickling into automobiles.   This isn't future tech; it's being done right now.  When these technologies are implemented, a 20-40% decrease in fuel consumption out of a conventional automobile is trivial.  Add in hybrid technology, and that drops even further.

- EV's will take off, and they will have an effect on oil demand disproportionate to their numbers.  The reason for this is that the most economical use case for an EV is when it's run at maximum capacity.  Delivery vehicles, taxis, ride-sharing, people with long commutes, etc are already economical cases for EV's.  Class-8 trucks running 200-500 miles/day, which represents the majority of trucking miles, will also be economical.  There's no technological barrier to building them and companies are working on it right now; it's only a matter of time.  These high-consumption use cases will electrify first.  This alone could halt - if not put a dent in - oil demand. 

- America simultaneously has problems with fuel demand, ever-growing landfills, and waste products from various industries.  The anything-to-liquids plants I mentioned will first be used to consume waste.  This is proven technology, and it's economical today because the plants profit both from tipping fees and from oil production.  Curious about this, I checked to see if anyone had estimated the amount of waste generated worldwide.  They had; the world's waste products are equivalent to approximately 30MMbpd of oil - nearly a third of world oil demand.  Granted, the world won't convert all of that, but it will certainly make an impact - esp. in the US where we generate so much waste. 

- Oil and natural gas prices have diverged, creating an opportunity for arbitrage.  Back in 2008 when oil prices peaked, there were plants to convert nat gas to oil.  The plans were only scrapped because oil prices tanked.  Either an increase in oil prices or an improvement in anything-to-liquids technology could revive those plans.

- LTO isn't the only resource that will benefit from improved technology.  My understanding is that oil companies are using knowledge gained to improve all operations, which brings with it the potential for production increases across all resources.

- There are untapped oil reserves.  Utah has its own type of oil sands; technology to extract it is already in the pilot production plant stage.  It's not proven, but there's some probability it will succeed. 

- The next-gen FT plants I mention have only one new technology: improved catalysts.  This technology is plausible because our ability to design & manufacture catalysts has dramatically improved with modern supercomputers, on which we can perform engineering analyses that were previously impossible.  That's only half of the equation though.  The other half is that they're scaling down the plants.  Much of the cost of a large plant is in the financing.  It takes many years to build, during which you accrue interest, before you make a dime off it.  If you build smaller plants - as Nucor started doing with steel decades ago - you slash costs w/o a single technological improvement.  As a bonus, smaller plants can be economically sited in a wider variety of locations.  This is not pie-in-the-sky stuff; it's application of simple, proven principles. 

So there are multiple ways to increase supply, multiple ways to decrease demand, and many players in the market.  That complexity decreases my confidence in simple projections and increases my confidence that, even if LTO fails, people will find a way. 

As for the price of oil, there's an interesting link between efficiency and prices: the more efficient our economy becomes, the higher prices we can tolerate.  We're doing just fine at $80/bbl.  In another 10 years, our GDP/BTU could easily improve 30%, at which point $100+/bbl oil will have less effect than $80/bbl oil has today.  That trend will continue.  At some point, it will be cheaper to seek marginal domestic resources than it will to police the world.  That's the tipping point.  When we have economical alternatives to OPEC's nonsense, we'll throw them to the wolves and mind our own business.  Without us footing the security bill, the Europe et al may find it cheaper to buy from stable nations - of which we're one.

I guess I misunderstood your meaning of new technology.  I thought you meant new technology for extracting oil, I agree that higher oil prices are likely to lead to substitution of other types of energy for crude oil as well as more efficient use of crude oil.  There is plenty of potential to replace falling C+C output (which I think will begin for World C+C output in 2023 to 2027 with a best guess of 2025) with other sources of energy (natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, and coal) and I think a transition to electric powered transportation is likely, though it will take 20 to 30 years for this transition to occur.  The higher the price of oil, the faster the transition will occur, natural gas and coal will also peak by 2030 to 2035 and so a push to replace oil with those energy sources will be a poor capital investment as those prices will also rise.  Wind, Solar, nuclear, and hydro are more promising energy resources with a smattering of natural gas backup and a widely dispersed highly interconnected high voltage direct current (HVDC) grid connecting it all together to reduce the need for expensive backup technologies, excess capacity built into the system (about 3 times average load) reduces the need for backup and reduces overall system cost.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global Politics at its highest level - two world leaders each with something up their sleeve, something hidden and something to protect. Time will tell but, as they say, a week is a long time in (current global) politics ! 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dennis Coyne said:

I guess I misunderstood your meaning of new technology. 

To be fair, I rarely explain things well the first time around - which is why I appreciate the dialogue. 

4 hours ago, Dennis Coyne said:

The higher the price of oil, the faster the transition will occur, natural gas and coal will also peak by 2030 to 2035 and so a push to replace oil with those energy sources will be a poor capital investment as those prices will also rise.  Wind, Solar, nuclear, and hydro are more promising energy resources with a smattering of natural gas backup and a widely dispersed highly interconnected high voltage direct current (HVDC) grid connecting it all together to reduce the need for expensive backup technologies, excess capacity built into the system (about 3 times average load) reduces the need for backup and reduces overall system cost. 

I'm not convinced large-scale wind & solar will win.  When people calculate the levelized cost, they tend to ignore:

1)  The quick-response (Read: "expensive to operate") backup  or extensive (read: "expensive to install") transmission lines required.

2)  The cost of unwanted electricity.  If the wind blows or the sun shines when we don't need it, the utility pays to dump that electricity - and passes the cost to consumers.

3)  Decommissioning costs.  What does one do with all those solar panels when they die, and how much will it cost to pull them down one-by-one?  Same for the wind turbines. 

Sure, the American Southwest, Middle East, Sahara, and niche applications will do well on renewables, but I don't see renewables competing with coal, nuclear, or CCGT on a large scale.  Of course, the market may prove me wrong.  Let's let the market work and see what happens. 

Hydro, HVDC, and triple redundancy also have question marks:

1)  There isn't enough hydro to power the economy.  We couldn't build it at any cost. 

2)  HVDC will certainly spread - it being a newer, cheaper, more efficient way to transport electricity - and we might see average network size increase, but I doubt anyone will build enough HVDC to achieve triple redundancy.  It's expensive and unnecessary.  Power engineers know how much excess capacity they need to meet reliability targets, and they provide exactly that; why throw money at a non-problem? 

Every time someone presents the "Widespread renewable/HVDC/Backup" argument, it follows this pattern:

1)  Create a reliability problem with renewables that barely break even on paper but are more expensive in reality (that's technological risk).

2)  Solve that reliability problem by installing expensive infrastructure. 

3)  Raise customer rates to pay for it all. 

As an alternative, I propose that we could just keep doing what's worked for decades: incrementally upgraded coal, natural gas, and nuclear with a seasoning of renewables and enough transmission to meet requirements.  It's cheap, it's reliable, and it's a known quantity.  That's a winning recipe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jaycee,

you struck a note with me concerning: "Only problem is the Saudis are being made to look bad and they really do have a serious issue about respect.",  so I figured, now is as good a time as any for the following, as on this board there are a good few people that I disagree with concerning my topic:

History is going to prove the Donald to be a disaster to the good folks of the USA.

Well, you voted him in, it’s of your own making, I won’t feel sorry for you.

The Donald believes, that it is acceptable to treat people from different nations and cultures as he has always treated his American “friends”, be they business mates, political buddies, employees, suppliers, or “even” women, i.e. without respect.

The people that got him into power (you), eventually will find yourselves in the same position, without respect from the man you voted for.

The list of nations/continents he’s offended is growing, Africa, Russia, Iran, Turkey, KSA, Canada, Mexico, China, Europe, while, I do have to admit and in his favor, he’s good friends with the politically influential Kim, you know, the “little rocket man”.

Less than two years of the Donald and the little respect left, that the USA had in the world, is progressively diminishing and that even at an astounding rate.

So, quite a lot of nations fold, or partly fold, to the bully’s wishes and he’s proud and happy, but do you really think they’ll forgive and/or forget? Proud people like the Chinese? The Arabs? The Africans? Maybe than the Europeans you used to have such good relations with?

They don’t blame the bully, he’s off in a couple of years time. No, they’ll blame the people that voted for him in the first place, i.c. the US electorate, the USA and they’ve got long memories and they'll want, "within reason", their pound of flesh.

Some nations with “democratic” histories will possibly accept that the Donald did not even win the popular vote and they’ll show you some compassion, sure, there’ll be a few.

No country in this world can go it alone, not even the USA.

There are quite a few clever people (non Donald voters, I’m sure) in the US who think what Robert de Niro said at the Tony awards, and who go their own way e.g. concerning climate (that's where is shows the clearest).

Throw in the tariffs, get all this outsourced industry back to the States. Then, as you have an almost record low unemployment rate, hire some Mexicans, Canadians or other foreigners to do the work that you don’t have good Americans for.

Let’s do some tax reform, get all the companies’ money back home, surely the economy will be booming. Companies buy back shares, dividends are up, (some) people are spending.

Sure the economy is booming and the man you’ve got to thank for this all, is the Donald.

But after the tide has risen, it falls. Then you’ll have to deal with the people with the long memories, the proud and offended ones.

I would like to offer all of you,

Good luck.

   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/3/2018 at 9:49 PM, franco said:

It's unusual, let's say an undiplomatic remark about close ally Saudi Arabia. But, it's a fact which we knew...

How long we will hide behind the diplomatic hypocrisy....    let us spell out facts and  act on it.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

13 hours ago, RuudinFrance said:

jaycee,

you struck a note with me concerning: "Only problem is the Saudis are being made to look bad and they really do have a serious issue about respect.",  so I figured, now is as good a time as any for the following, as on this board there are a good few people that I disagree with concerning my topic:

History is going to prove the Donald to be a disaster to the good folks of the USA.

Well, you voted him in, it’s of your own making, I won’t feel sorry for you.

The Donald believes, that it is acceptable to treat people from different nations and cultures as he has always treated his American “friends”, be they business mates, political buddies, employees, suppliers, or “even” women, i.e. without respect.

The people that got him into power (you), eventually will find yourselves in the same position, without respect from the man you voted for.

The list of nations/continents he’s offended is growing, Africa, Russia, Iran, Turkey, KSA, Canada, Mexico, China, Europe, while, I do have to admit and in his favor, he’s good friends with the politically influential Kim, you know, the “little rocket man”.

Less than two years of the Donald and the little respect left, that the USA had in the world, is progressively diminishing and that even at an astounding rate.

So, quite a lot of nations fold, or partly fold, to the bully’s wishes and he’s proud and happy, but do you really think they’ll forgive and/or forget? Proud people like the Chinese? The Arabs? The Africans? Maybe than the Europeans you used to have such good relations with?

They don’t blame the bully, he’s off in a couple of years time. No, they’ll blame the people that voted for him in the first place, i.c. the US electorate, the USA and they’ve got long memories and they'll want, "within reason", their pound of flesh.

Some nations with “democratic” histories will possibly accept that the Donald did not even win the popular vote and they’ll show you some compassion, sure, there’ll be a few.

No country in this world can go it alone, not even the USA.

There are quite a few clever people (non Donald voters, I’m sure) in the US who think what Robert de Niro said at the Tony awards, and who go their own way e.g. concerning climate (that's where is shows the clearest).

Throw in the tariffs, get all this outsourced industry back to the States. Then, as you have an almost record low unemployment rate, hire some Mexicans, Canadians or other foreigners to do the work that you don’t have good Americans for.

Let’s do some tax reform, get all the companies’ money back home, surely the economy will be booming. Companies buy back shares, dividends are up, (some) people are spending.

Sure the economy is booming and the man you’ve got to thank for this all, is the Donald.

But after the tide has risen, it falls. Then you’ll have to deal with the people with the long memories, the proud and offended ones.

I would like to offer all of you,

Good luck.

   

Ruudin

Welcome to the Oilprice. I am not sure where you got the idea I was American from or that I am in any way happy with the way Trump's America is conducting business just now.  I think you should readdress your post to an American Trump supporter.

Edited by jaycee
adding welcome
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jaycee said:

Ruudin

Welcome to the Oilprice. I am not sure where you got the idea I was American from or that I am in any way happy with the way Trump's America is conducting business just now.  I think you should readdress your post to an American Trump supporter.

Ruudin,

I'm your huckleberry.  😎

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, mthebold said:

To be fair, I rarely explain things well the first time around - which is why I appreciate the dialogue. 

I'm not convinced large-scale wind & solar will win.  When people calculate the levelized cost, they tend to ignore:

1)  The quick-response (Read: "expensive to operate") backup  or extensive (read: "expensive to install") transmission lines required.

2)  The cost of unwanted electricity.  If the wind blows or the sun shines when we don't need it, the utility pays to dump that electricity - and passes the cost to consumers.

3)  Decommissioning costs.  What does one do with all those solar panels when they die, and how much will it cost to pull them down one-by-one?  Same for the wind turbines. 

Sure, the American Southwest, Middle East, Sahara, and niche applications will do well on renewables, but I don't see renewables competing with coal, nuclear, or CCGT on a large scale.  Of course, the market may prove me wrong.  Let's let the market work and see what happens. 

Hydro, HVDC, and triple redundancy also have question marks:

1)  There isn't enough hydro to power the economy.  We couldn't build it at any cost. 

2)  HVDC will certainly spread - it being a newer, cheaper, more efficient way to transport electricity - and we might see average network size increase, but I doubt anyone will build enough HVDC to achieve triple redundancy.  It's expensive and unnecessary.  Power engineers know how much excess capacity they need to meet reliability targets, and they provide exactly that; why throw money at a non-problem? 

Every time someone presents the "Widespread renewable/HVDC/Backup" argument, it follows this pattern:

1)  Create a reliability problem with renewables that barely break even on paper but are more expensive in reality (that's technological risk).

2)  Solve that reliability problem by installing expensive infrastructure. 

3)  Raise customer rates to pay for it all. 

As an alternative, I propose that we could just keep doing what's worked for decades: incrementally upgraded coal, natural gas, and nuclear with a seasoning of renewables and enough transmission to meet requirements.  It's cheap, it's reliable, and it's a known quantity.  That's a winning recipe. 

Climate change is an issue, so continued use of fossil fuels is not a good idea.  In most places the grid already exists, HVDC is a better option, but the HVAC grid is already a reality in the developed world, so not a lot of expense there.  All fossil fuels will peak by 2030 and prices will increase, the 3 times capacity compared to average load is not much different from existing capacity relative to average load, a dispersed and interconnected wind and solar supply for electricity will require between 1% and 10% of load hours to be supplied by backup sources (whether it is battery, nuclear, fuel cells, or natural gas, let the cheapest option win).  Costs for wind and solar are continuing to fall, also excess output could be used to charge batteries, heat water for later use, or make ice, depending upon local needs, it could also be used for pumped hydro (again storing energy for later use), and if no use can be found, it can be run to ground.  Disposal costs are an issue for any type of investment.  

 

The "winning strategy" you suggest is based on the assumption that coal and natural gas output will increase without limit, within 10 to 15 years, it will be clear that another strategy is needed as consumption growth will outstrip supply growth.  The "backup for renewables" does not need to be built, it already exists.  The growth in wind and solar will simply replace the most expensive existing coal power plants, when those are gone, then the most expensive natural gas power plants will gradually be replaced, with the best "peaker" plants being kept as backup where needed.  Eventually fossil fuel will be eliminated for electric power and only non-fossil fuel electric power will be utilized by 2050.  In the best areas for solar and wind, coal and natural gas are more expensive.  Great plains for wind, and Southwest US for solar, as technology drives down costs further for wind and solar the areas where wind and solar are the cheapest source of electric power will expand.  HVDC connections between the major grids in the US, Canada, and Mexico will allow excess power to be moved where it is needed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/3/2018 at 10:50 AM, mthebold said:

The US seems to do poorly when remarks are "diplomatic".  I'd rather live in a world where the obvious is stated. 

 

We'll shortly be an oil exporter, and at that price, we could turn anything into oil.  It would hurt in the short term for sure, but high oil prices eventually benefit us. 

The US a net oil exporter? Key word being net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2018 at 4:01 PM, RuudinFrance said:

jaycee,

you struck a note with me concerning: "Only problem is the Saudis are being made to look bad and they really do have a serious issue about respect.",  so I figured, now is as good a time as any for the following, as on this board there are a good few people that I disagree with concerning my topic:

History is going to prove the Donald to be a disaster to the good folks of the USA.

Well, you voted him in, it’s of your own making, I won’t feel sorry for you.

The Donald believes, that it is acceptable to treat people from different nations and cultures as he has always treated his American “friends”, be they business mates, political buddies, employees, suppliers, or “even” women, i.e. without respect.

The people that got him into power (you), eventually will find yourselves in the same position, without respect from the man you voted for. 

The list of nations/continents he’s offended is growing, Africa, Russia, Iran, Turkey, KSA, Canada, Mexico, China, Europe, while, I do have to admit and in his favor, he’s good friends with the politically influential Kim, you know, the “little rocket man”.

Less than two years of the Donald and the little respect left, that the USA had in the world, is progressively diminishing and that even at an astounding rate. 

So, quite a lot of nations fold, or partly fold, to the bully’s wishes and he’s proud and happy, but do you really think they’ll forgive and/or forget? Proud people like the Chinese? The Arabs? The Africans? Maybe than the Europeans you used to have such good relations with?

They don’t blame the bully, he’s off in a couple of years time. No, they’ll blame the people that voted for him in the first place, i.c. the US electorate, the USA and they’ve got long memories and they'll want, "within reason", their pound of flesh.

Some nations with “democratic” histories will possibly accept that the Donald did not even win the popular vote and they’ll show you some compassion, sure, there’ll be a few.

No country in this world can go it alone, not even the USA.

There are quite a few clever people (non Donald voters, I’m sure) in the US who think what Robert de Niro said at the Tony awards, and who go their own way e.g. concerning climate (that's where is shows the clearest).

Throw in the tariffs, get all this outsourced industry back to the States. Then, as you have an almost record low unemployment rate, hire some Mexicans, Canadians or other foreigners to do the work that you don’t have good Americans for.

Let’s do some tax reform, get all the companies’ money back home, surely the economy will be booming. Companies buy back shares, dividends are up, (some) people are spending.

Sure the economy is booming and the man you’ve got to thank for this all, is the Donald.

But after the tide has risen, it falls. Then you’ll have to deal with the people with the long memories, the proud and offended ones.

I would like to offer all of you,

Good luck.

   

This looks fun; I'll field it. 

You say Trump is losing the world's respect, to which I reply, "So f***ing what?"  The world never respected us; it just kissed ass to get more of our money.  Beneath the thin veneer of "respect" has always been a passive-aggressive economic war; Trump is smart enough not to play that game. 

As for no country being able to go it alone, America is sufficiently large and sufficiently endowed with natural resources that we could, in fact, go it alone.  America may be unique in operating from The Position of Fuck You.  You have a problem with that?  F*** you.  We don't care. 

However, for the sake of argument, let's assume you're correct that no country - not even the US - can go it alone.  We won't have to.  "Respect" never had anything to do with global trade; it's all about money and security.  As long as we reliably provide product at competitive prices, the world will do business with us.  Even when our prices aren't competitive, the world may choose to do business with us because they need diversified supply.  Even the USSR allied with us in their time of need. 

If you don't want to do business with us, don't do business with us.  We don't give a s***; we have other things to do. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dennis Coyne said:

Climate change is an issue, so continued use of fossil fuels is not a good idea.  In most places the grid already exists, HVDC is a better option, but the HVAC grid is already a reality in the developed world, so not a lot of expense there.  All fossil fuels will peak by 2030 and prices will increase, the 3 times capacity compared to average load is not much different from existing capacity relative to average load, a dispersed and interconnected wind and solar supply for electricity will require between 1% and 10% of load hours to be supplied by backup sources (whether it is battery, nuclear, fuel cells, or natural gas, let the cheapest option win).  Costs for wind and solar are continuing to fall, also excess output could be used to charge batteries, heat water for later use, or make ice, depending upon local needs, it could also be used for pumped hydro (again storing energy for later use), and if no use can be found, it can be run to ground.  Disposal costs are an issue for any type of investment.  

 

The "winning strategy" you suggest is based on the assumption that coal and natural gas output will increase without limit, within 10 to 15 years, it will be clear that another strategy is needed as consumption growth will outstrip supply growth.  The "backup for renewables" does not need to be built, it already exists.  The growth in wind and solar will simply replace the most expensive existing coal power plants, when those are gone, then the most expensive natural gas power plants will gradually be replaced, with the best "peaker" plants being kept as backup where needed.  Eventually fossil fuel will be eliminated for electric power and only non-fossil fuel electric power will be utilized by 2050.  In the best areas for solar and wind, coal and natural gas are more expensive.  Great plains for wind, and Southwest US for solar, as technology drives down costs further for wind and solar the areas where wind and solar are the cheapest source of electric power will expand.  HVDC connections between the major grids in the US, Canada, and Mexico will allow excess power to be moved where it is needed.

Like I said, I'm skeptical.  If you're confident in your solution, you should take it to appropriate utilities and collect your consulting fee. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2018 at 4:01 PM, RuudinFrance said:

The Donald believes, that it is acceptable to treat people from different nations and cultures as he has always treated his American “friends”, be they business mates, political buddies, employees, suppliers, or “even” women, i.e. without respect....

...

But after the tide has risen, it falls. Then you’ll have to deal with the people with the long memories, the proud and offended ones.

I would like to offer all of you,

Good luck.

   

Read this a second time and picked up a detail: you don't understand American culture.  The whole point of this country is to not have to care what other people think; we have a whole constitution about it.  We don't give a s*** if others "respect" us by offering the appropriate homages.  We just care that you render goods and services as contracted.  That's it; you're not special. 

Try not to break your arms jerking each other off. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Khashoggi case is casting a shadow on US-Saudi relations. Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are  even considering imposing sanctions on KSA... Is the Trump-MBS honeymoon over?  Or are the oil strategic interests and the weapons contracts too big to be dented by any human rights considerations ?

 

"US President Donald Trump is facing increased pressure over the Khashoggi case. Late Tuesday, a bipartisan group of senators wrote to the President, calling for the White House to determine what happened to Khashoggi and whether sanctions should be imposed on whoever was responsible for his fate.
The letter, penned by the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, triggers an investigation under legislation that allows the President to impose sanctions on individuals or countries that are deemed to have committed a human rights violation. The White House must respond within 120 days, setting out what actions it proposes to take."
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

The Khashoggi case is casting a shadow on US-Saudi relations. Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are  even considering imposing sanctions on KSA... Is the Trump-MBS honeymoon over?  Or are the oil strategic interests and the weapons contracts too big to be dented by any human rights considerations ?

 

"US President Donald Trump is facing increased pressure over the Khashoggi case. Late Tuesday, a bipartisan group of senators wrote to the President, calling for the White House to determine what happened to Khashoggi and whether sanctions should be imposed on whoever was responsible for his fate.
The letter, penned by the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, triggers an investigation under legislation that allows the President to impose sanctions on individuals or countries that are deemed to have committed a human rights violation. The White House must respond within 120 days, setting out what actions it proposes to take."
 

To quote Top Gun:  120 days!  This thing will be all over in 120 days! (puff cigar vigorously)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

The letter, penned by the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, triggers an investigation under legislation that allows the President to impose sanctions on individuals or countries that are deemed to have committed a human rights violation. The White House must respond within 120 days, setting out what actions it proposes to take."

 

I am struggling to see how the disappearance of a Saudi National in Turkey whilst in the Saudi Embassy gives America any jurisdiction. Does that mean America can intervene in any country it chooses because it has made a law, Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, that says it can? Its beyond parody.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jaycee said:

I am struggling to see how the disappearance of a Saudi National in Turkey whilst in the Saudi Embassy gives America any jurisdiction. Does that mean America can intervene in any country it chooses because it has made a law, Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, that says it can? Its beyond parody.

Let's look at history to see if this is "beyond parody":  Britain invaded the US in 1812 because they thought they could win, France sold the Louisiana Territory to the US because Napoleon thought he could conquer us later, OPEC manipulated oil prices until about 2016 because they believed themselves invulnerable (I look forward to watching their fall from power.), China is fortifying the South China Sea because no one has the balls to oppose them, the EU exploited a loophole in international trade law to create VAT taxes that are functionally equivalent to tariffs... this list could go on forever.

I'm pretty sure any country can - and will - do anything its hard power can support.  This isn't news. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

7 hours ago, mthebold said:

Let's look at history to see if this is "beyond parody":  Britain invaded the US in 1812 because they thought they could win, France sold the Louisiana Territory to the US because Napoleon thought he could conquer us later, OPEC manipulated oil prices until about 2016 because they believed themselves invulnerable (I look forward to watching their fall from power.), China is fortifying the South China Sea because no one has the balls to oppose them, the EU exploited a loophole in international trade law to create VAT taxes that are functionally equivalent to tariffs... this list could go on forever.

I'm pretty sure any country can - and will - do anything its hard power can support.  This isn't news. 

The parody is America regularly claims to be the upholder of democracy around the world but creates laws to interfere in other countries. Hypocrisy is more accurate.

What other countries do is irrelvant unless you are saying America is just the same in which case we agree which is the point of my post. Now tell your current and future presidents to stop the hypocrisy as a lot of Americans believe them and support them in wars on that basis.

Edited by jaycee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

9 hours ago, jaycee said:

The parody is America regularly claims to be the upholder of democracy around the world but creates laws to interfere in other countries. Hypocrisy is more accurate.

What other countries do is irrelvant unless you are saying America is just the same in which case we agree which is the point of my post. Now tell your current and future presidents to stop the hypocrisy as a lot of Americans believe them and support them in wars on that basis. 

Do I really need to list the countries engaging in hypocrisy?  International relations is hypocrisy. 

Americans believed their government was upholding democracy because we had to clean up Europe's mess.  Twice.  We also had to stop an imperialistic Japan from raping its way across East Asia & the Pacific.  Then we had to simultaneously keep totalitarianism contained in East Asia, rebuild Europe, provide a credible threat against Russia, and defend the world's oil supplies.  So yes, America interferes in the rest of the world because y'all can't be arsed to defend yourselves.  Since you'll inevitably end up as someone's pawn, it's often necessary for our safety that you be our pawns.  American interventionism is a direct result of your inability. 

What's remarkable about American interventionism is not that it happened, but that we were the most generous "empire" in all of history.  Go talk to Eastern Europe about Russian interference, and you'll count your blessings you dealt with the US instead.  We spent our blood and treasure defending foreign people from dictators, we policed trade routes to the benefit of all, and we handed over much of our industry - impoverishing half our population in the process. The Americans who supported this did so because they firmly believed they were defending democracy - but no more.  Sick of your childish ingratitude, they've decided to put America first.  You didn't deserve America the Defender of Democracy, so now you get America the Ruthless Capitalist.  You chose this; you have only yourselves to blame. 

Which brings me to my main point: if these "proud and offended" people were capable of threatening the US - economically or militarily - they'd also be capable of defending themselves.  In such a world, America would have no need to interfere.  So by all means, snub the US.  Build your own industries, fund your own defense, and assume the burden we've carried for so long.  We'll be wealthier for it. 

Edited by mthebold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mthebold said:

Do I really need to list the countries engaging in hypocrisy?  International relations is hypocrisy.

I do wish you would refrain from saying 'your' or 'yours' in you replies to me as though I am some kind of nationalist I am a realist I try and see the world through clear eyes and wipe away the BS you should try it sometime its cathartic. It has taken me a few years I must admit to see at least partially through the lies generated by all governments to get their populations to support them, and even die for them, so they can profit Bush and Iraq perhaps? Nationalism I am afraid only causes problems as countries fall out with each other and things usually escalate to war. If you think isolationism is going to bring peace to America just remember WW2 when an isolationist America was attacked by Japan.

So back to the topic do you genuinely believe America has selflessly protected the world since 1945? World trade has not benefited America at all? Nobody has bought into the American culture that has been exported all round the world? Where you can buy a McDonalds in most countries of the world. Your comments telling me how selfless America is does not impress me by the way all powers have done it over the centuries but always because it benefited them. The British navy policed the seas selflessly spending a fortune running a large navy protecting world trade, however they benefited most from trade, you see the similarities here to America? Russia who you say are not helpful to their allies are selflessly sending Syria large amounts of money, equipment and men to operate it to help restore Assad to power which has the little bonus of keeping the only port Putin can access in the Med open. America is not the only country to spend money and men to gain control if they stop doing it they will lose control to Russia and China. There will be a short term boost as spending is cut but when trade starts getting cut the problems will start. The cracks are there already if you look closely, Germany importing oil and gas from Russia, Europe, Russia and China looking to help Iran avoid sanctions, Saudi striking agreements on oil with Russia etc, Europe and the Middle East will face East and American influence will wane and much as you say America doesn't need the rest of the world I think you will find trade is what makes you rich and having no influence on it will hurt.

My original point however is the absurdity of America writing a law unilaterally to allow them to interfere where ever they want in the world. Tell me do you genuinely not see that as hypocritical for a country claiming to support democracy to have a law that lets them bypass elected governments in other countries. I think you can see it but are putting up a nationalist smokescreen to avoid saying it. Come over to the dark side say the words and start to wipe the BS out of your eyes :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, jaycee said:

I do wish you would refrain from saying 'your' or 'yours' in you replies to me as though I am some kind of nationalist I am a realist I try and see the world through clear eyes and wipe away the BS you should try it sometime its cathartic. It has taken me a few years I must admit to see at least partially through the lies generated by all governments to get their populations to support them, and even die for them, so they can profit Bush and Iraq perhaps? Nationalism I am afraid only causes problems as countries fall out with each other and things usually escalate to war. If you think isolationism is going to bring peace to America just remember WW2 when an isolationist America was attacked by Japan. 

So back to the topic do you genuinely believe America has selflessly protected the world since 1945? World trade has not benefited America at all? Nobody has bought into the American culture that has been exported all round the world? Where you can buy a McDonalds in most countries of the world. Your comments telling me how selfless America is does not impress me by the way all powers have done it over the centuries but always because it benefited them. The British navy policed the seas selflessly spending a fortune running a large navy protecting world trade, however they benefited most from trade, you see the similarities here to America? Russia who you say are not helpful to their allies are selflessly sending Syria large amounts of money, equipment and men to operate it to help restore Assad to power which has the little bonus of keeping the only port Putin can access in the Med open. America is not the only country to spend money and men to gain control if they stop doing it they will lose control to Russia and China. There will be a short term boost as spending is cut but when trade starts getting cut the problems will start. The cracks are there already if you look closely, Germany importing oil and gas from Russia, Europe, Russia and China looking to help Iran avoid sanctions, Saudi striking agreements on oil with Russia etc, Europe and the Middle East will face East and American influence will wane and much as you say America doesn't need the rest of the world I think you will find trade is what makes you rich and having no influence on it will hurt. 

My original point however is the absurdity of America writing a law unilaterally to allow them to interfere where ever they want in the world. Tell me do you genuinely not see that as hypocritical for a country claiming to support democracy to have a law that lets them bypass elected governments in other countries. I think you can see it but are putting up a nationalist smokescreen to avoid saying it. Come over to the dark side say the words and start to wipe the BS out of your eyes :)

  

Historically, empires attempting to gain wealth through trade bankrupt themselves keeping the trade lanes open.  Specific American corporations certainly benefit from trade, but America as a whole suffers.  Like every empire that came before us, we were wealthier when we minded our own business, and we'll be wealthier when we return to minding our own business. 

Russia, China, and Europe are jockeying for global position.  This contrasts with the post WWII era - when America alone could oppose the USSR - in that there are several non-American peer competitors.  As long as none of them obtains a global advantage, America's direct involvement isn't profitable.  We're better off building domestic industry and selling weapons/technology/raw materials to the direct competitors - which is exactly what we'll do. 

America supported democracy to create a more stable world - global instability having caused us so much trouble.  Our support worked in Germany, Japan, and a few other places, but failed elsewhere.  I don't know the cause of failures, nor do I care.  What I do know is that, when a strategically important nation proves unreliable, America props up whatever government is to our advantage.  We do this to prevent foreign warfare and dickery from inconveniencing us like it did during the 20th century.  Since it was the world that forced us to be involved in the first place, I find our interference - anywhere and any way it's convenient for us - to be a perfectly reasonable preventative action.  If y'all don't like our management, develop some hard power, manage yourselves, and stay friendly.  It's that easy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mthebold said:

Historically, empires attempting to gain wealth through trade bankrupt themselves keeping the trade lanes open.  Specific American corporations certainly benefit from trade, but America as a whole suffers.  Like every empire that came before us, we were wealthier when we minded our own business, and we'll be wealthier when we return to minding our own business. 

The Romans tried to seal off the empire under Hadrian, built walls at the borders and re trenched to protect their land it didn’t work the rest of the world had worked out what had made them strong, their military, and were then able to hurt them and reduce Rome to nothing. The British Empire was created on the back of trading, a strong navy and the fact the UK went into the industrial revolution first. Everyone caught up eventually and America took over after Britain spent too much on 2 World Wars trying to stop the Germans. Americans eventually helped a little towards the end of both, I know Hollywood history tries to say different :) The final and most painful loss though was inflicted by America after they took over the control of the default world trading currency in 1945 and thus condemning the UIK to almost bankruptcy due to them no longer having a strong £. America then effectively copied what previous empires had done over time and started throwing their weight around as they were the most industrially advanced, the others having been devastated by the 2 World Wars, and using the $ as exchange allowed them to run up large debts they could manage as they kept the $ strong. Now a new empire is rising in China which is copying America and will overtake it in time in all areas. America retreating into itself will hasten the end as when they leave the world stage they will lose the most important thing i.e. the $ as the world’s reserve currency. When that happens all that debt the US has built up in $s may suddenly become a whole lot heavier when it doesn’t control the exchange rate with the new global currency.

8 hours ago, mthebold said:

Russia, China, and Europe are jockeying for global position.  This contrasts with the post WWII era - when America alone could oppose the USSR - in that there are several non-American peer competitors.  As long as none of them obtains a global advantage, America's direct involvement isn't profitable.  We're better off building domestic industry and selling weapons/technology/raw materials to the direct competitors - which is exactly what we'll do. 

China and Russia seem to be becoming friends they are even doing joint military exercises. Europe seems to be siding with them too as America becomes more and more unreasonable under Trump. Very soon America will be isolated and have no influence. Nobody will buy American goods as they can be made cheaper in China and raw materials will be sourced from all round the world by China who are pouring money into many countries to secure their resources and develop them with their technology, mainly Africa.

8 hours ago, mthebold said:

America supported democracy to create a more stable world - global instability having caused us so much trouble.  Our support worked in Germany, Japan, and a few other places, but failed elsewhere.  I don't know the cause of failures, nor do I care.  What I do know is that, when a strategically important nation proves unreliable, America props up whatever government is to our advantage.  We do this to prevent foreign warfare and dickery from inconveniencing us like it did during the 20th century.  Since it was the world that forced us to be involved in the first place, I find our interference - anywhere and any way it's convenient for us - to be a perfectly reasonable preventative action.  If y'all don't like our management, develop some hard power, manage yourselves, and stay friendly.  It's that easy. 

There is still global instability America is involved in most of it. Once the European powers were broken the only fighting going on was between the USSR and America. Stopping communism that was clearly something America wanted to do, nobody asked America to invade Vietnam for instance. Now America still invades countries on spurious reasons. I am glad you agree they are doing all this for what the American rulers believe is in their best interest though, we are getting close to some sort of agreement you are almost calling them hypocrites there.. As for not liking your management as you put it well I think as I have been saying the world is leaving America to its madness.

By the way you dropped into assuming I am a nationalist again and believe in the country I inhabit currently, as I said I don’t, to me governments are all the same. I must admit to be seeing China and Russia as a whole lot better than the US just now and I see many governments thinking the same. The way Trump is trying to change everything in his own inimitable way is causing rifts throughout the world. These ‘wins’ he thinks he is getting are going to come back and bite him, and America, hard and as I have mentioned potentially cause America to lose its power and influence a lot quicker. The US having laws that it unilaterally writes allowing it to interfere in other countries is the thin end of the wedge that has been developing for a long time as America seeks to have all countries bow to its laws.

The world is turning against the US. I predict in a few years even the US’s strongest ally in Europe, the UK, will start cutting ties with it and become very close to Russia. The UK is only one general election from having a communist government currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites