Your idea of oil/gas prices next ten years

[BillKidd + 139]

It would be interesting to see non-transportation versus transportation oil demand and forecast demand for both. That would be insightful, because we will have alternatives for transportation but not for many other things. Oil is an incredible resource. In other words, if demand for non-transportation uses (plastics, clothing) is such and such and production from low operating cost fields is enough to satisfy that for (pick a number) of years/decades, that is bearish for future price.

Edited November 15, 2018 by BillKidd

[jaycee + 348]

6 minutes ago, DA? said:

As I said it will be a trend not a nice neat curve down

Trending down will mean no exploration and therefore the replacement of supply nobody spends money if the trend is not upwards. Expensive fields will be allowed to decay through lack of maintenance until they are useless. This is what happens in the oil industry regularly, the decay however is usually reversed as the upward trend is normally resumed at a later date with your scenario it wont therefore the supply will rapidly decrease and be accelerated due to countries economies collapsing and turning stable oil producing regions into war zones.

7 minutes ago, DA? said:

I will stop repeating myself when a decent argument is given but I really have seen none yet. 

lol just listen to what you are saying, everyone else is wrong apart from you, amazing.

[SERWIN + 749]

As for peak oil in the next couple of years due to EVs please tell me what you are smoking? Where are all these EVs? Where are all the charging stations to run them? That is not going to happen next year even in a drug induced dream.

 

I will probably never own an EV, simply because I want to go out to my vehicle, start it up and drive away. Whether I am going 25 miles or 500 miles, I can put fuel into it and keep on driving at thousands of places, gas stations are everywhere. I have no problem with the ICE manufacturers making them more and more efficient, but to have to stop my trip and wait for a charge? Until they can "fill up" your EV in a few minutes and continue the journey, I don't see the general public wanting to deal with that issue. It is nice to be able to own two vehicles, one for the short trip and another for the farther destinations, but most average citizens can't really afford that luxury. So I see that oil will not peak out nearly as soon as most people are predicting simply because of that one fact. I am old though, so I also like to hear the rumble of a 400+ horse V8 flowing through a set of low restriction pipes. Do that with an EV.

[SERWIN + 749]

Canada’s Crude Crisis Is Accelerating

I also believe that it is high time the oil companies quit worrying about this kind of troubles, I say fine, Canada, California, wherever else doesn't want these pipelines and other infrastructure in your state, don't put it there. When they are paying 8-10 dollars a gallon for gasoline because everything has to be trucked in, so be it. When your electric bill starts being 600-800 a month you will finally understand. You asked for that and no whining when you get what you ask for. I see in the future that these places will cause their own little economies that have separate, significantly higher costs for oil and oil related products, whereas the mainstream areas that work to make those pipelines safer and ease the restrictions of supplying tje refineries will enjoy the benefits of those efforts. That's how I would do it. In Canada, they don't want more pipelines, fine, produce what you can produce and stick it up their ass with the higher costs associated with those tree huggers wishes. Eventually the population will come around and see what they have done to themselves with all the restrictions, and reprisals will be swift. There are problems to deal with on both sides, and eventually a consensus will have to be reached by both sides. If we keep putting restrictions on the supply, then the prices will naturally be driven in an upward trend, of course. I don't really believe that we will see peak demand for at least another 20 years, we just don't have the resources to produce electricity with the available "green" sources. That's the way I understand it. And doesn't it cost more energy to make a solar panel or a windmill than they can produce in a lifetime?  That's the way I understand it. Kinda like the idea of a perpetual motion machine that puts out more than it consumes?  So the "greenies" actually believe that those sources don't pollute? LMAO, so many people just have no concept what is involved in making a solar panel or a windmill. They don't see what it took on the front end, just that it doesn't pollute while it is producing for them on the back side.

[Robert Ziegler + 121]

Around 16bbl/ounce of gold, give or take, averaging out at that price or the period, maybe moving in the low 20ies towards the end.

[Brent Hamrick + 31]

American Oil is what should be watched. With that being said the oil barons are banking on the fact that we are all too distracted from what they are doing, opening up Alaska for oil drilling. So if you want to see the growth turn your attention to American oil companies. Check out the http://www.blm.gov to see the land lease sales coming up in December in Alaska and the lower 48 (Texas/Nebraska/Kansas/Wyoming/Colorado/Montana/Utah etc. Check out the companies that are planning on transporting this “newly found oil”. By 2020 the USA will be the dominate exporter of crude and LNG to the world. OPEC is being locked up and unable to bring their product to market. Right now oil is tanking as designed, come mid 2019 all the contracts for oil leasing will be finalized and paying. Get in now for the shift. Buffet mentioned several months ago that this company is worth watching in one of his owned news paper companies, ETE = Energy Transfer Equity. KMI = Kinder Morgan Inc is the Texas based company that is poised to build the remainder of the Keystone pipeline in 2019. Look it up.

I’m working on a list see below:

There are 2 companies in Alaska Arctic Slope Regional Corporation and the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation applied for land lease.

VST = Vistra Energy Corp  (Koch brothers hold this)
GDOT = Green Dot Corporation  (Stash stock trading apt)
FORM = FormFactor Inc  (Koch brothers hold this)
TRP = TC PIPELINES LP Common Stock  (Keystone Pipeline builders)
ETE = Energy Transfer Equity  (transport)
KMI = Kinder Morgan Inc  (pipeline TX)
LNG = Cheniere Energy, Inc (https://business.financialpost.com/news/first-of-many-40b-lng-canada-signals-revival-of-mega-projects )
PAA = Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. (oil transport)
CHK = Chesapeake Energy Corporation  (drilling)
TNP = TSAKOS ENERGY N/SH (oil shipping/transport – Greek company)
EQNR = Equinor ASA  (Norwegian oil processing company)
ICE = Intercontinental Exchange Inc  (commodity market owner)
NBL = Noble Energy, Inc  (drilling/refining)
XOM = Exxon Mobil Corporation 
COP = ConocoPhillips 
EOG= EOG Resources Inc 
APA = Apache Corporation 
SAEX = SAExploration 
KMI = Kinder Morgan Inc (pipelines)
SRE = Sempra Energy 
Eni SpA = Eni (Italian company in Alaska)
EGY = VAALCO Energy, Inc (processing/drilling)
MUR = Murphy Oil Corporation  (exploration company)
NFX = Newfield Exploration  (exploration and production)
SWN = Southwestern Energy Company  (exploration and production)
HAL = Halliburton Company 
ESG = FLEXSHARES TR/STOXX US ESG IMPACT  (part of Halliburton) (offices in Alaska/CA/CO/TX)
WFT = Weatherford International plc 
BHGE = Baker Hughes A GE Co 
QTCQX:AMAZ = Amazing oil 
TELL = Tellurian Inc (transporter of LNG)

Tesoro was bought by Marathon Petroleum on October 1, 2018. (ARCO own’s Tesoro) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andeavor Why would they buy a company

MRO = Marathon Oil Corporation 
VLO = Valero part of Parent of Marathon Oil Corporation

[Fac226 + 3]

You asked a serious question and got some cartoonish responses. $25 oil in 10 years in a world of 8 billion people and minimal EV impact. I don't know what "advanced member" means but it does not stand for advanced thinking. 

[Bobby P + 88]

DA? Are you serious or kidding. I can't understand. You do know that EVs account for less than 1% of vehicles worldwide - do you really believe that over the next 1 or 2 years all 2 billion vehicles in the world will switch over to EV? 😄 Haha!

You do realize that Oil is used for many other by-products than just transportation fuel right? With an ever growing population, the demand for energy will only increase and oil will continue to be at the fore-front of that. I can't understand how you can justify your stance, sorry I just find it hilarious. Thanks for chuckle! 

[Bobby P + 88]

1 hour ago, Brent Hamrick said:

American Oil is what should be watched. With that being said the oil barons are banking on the fact that we are all too distracted from what they are doing, opening up Alaska for oil drilling. So if you want to see the growth turn your attention to American oil companies. Check out the http://www.blm.gov to see the land lease sales coming up in December in Alaska and the lower 48 (Texas/Nebraska/Kansas/Wyoming/Colorado/Montana/Utah etc. Check out the companies that are planning on transporting this “newly found oil”. By 2020 the USA will be the dominate exporter of crude and LNG to the world. OPEC is being locked up and unable to bring their product to market. Right now oil is tanking as designed, come mid 2019 all the contracts for oil leasing will be finalized and paying. Get in now for the shift. Buffet mentioned several months ago that this company is worth watching in one of his owned news paper companies, ETE = Energy Transfer Equity. KMI = Kinder Morgan Inc is the Texas based company that is poised to build the remainder of the Keystone pipeline in 2019. Look it up.

I’m working on a list see below:

There are 2 companies in Alaska Arctic Slope Regional Corporation and the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation applied for land lease.

VST = Vistra Energy Corp  (Koch brothers hold this)
GDOT = Green Dot Corporation  (Stash stock trading apt)
FORM = FormFactor Inc  (Koch brothers hold this)
TRP = TC PIPELINES LP Common Stock  (Keystone Pipeline builders)
ETE = Energy Transfer Equity  (transport)
KMI = Kinder Morgan Inc  (pipeline TX)
LNG = Cheniere Energy, Inc (https://business.financialpost.com/news/first-of-many-40b-lng-canada-signals-revival-of-mega-projects )
PAA = Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. (oil transport)
CHK = Chesapeake Energy Corporation  (drilling)
TNP = TSAKOS ENERGY N/SH (oil shipping/transport – Greek company)
EQNR = Equinor ASA  (Norwegian oil processing company)
ICE = Intercontinental Exchange Inc  (commodity market owner)
NBL = Noble Energy, Inc  (drilling/refining)
XOM = Exxon Mobil Corporation 
COP = ConocoPhillips 
EOG= EOG Resources Inc 
APA = Apache Corporation 
SAEX = SAExploration 
KMI = Kinder Morgan Inc (pipelines)
SRE = Sempra Energy 
Eni SpA = Eni (Italian company in Alaska)
EGY = VAALCO Energy, Inc (processing/drilling)
MUR = Murphy Oil Corporation  (exploration company)
NFX = Newfield Exploration  (exploration and production)
SWN = Southwestern Energy Company  (exploration and production)
HAL = Halliburton Company 
ESG = FLEXSHARES TR/STOXX US ESG IMPACT  (part of Halliburton) (offices in Alaska/CA/CO/TX)
WFT = Weatherford International plc 
BHGE = Baker Hughes A GE Co 
QTCQX:AMAZ = Amazing oil 
TELL = Tellurian Inc (transporter of LNG)

Tesoro was bought by Marathon Petroleum on October 1, 2018. (ARCO own’s Tesoro) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andeavor Why would they buy a company

MRO = Marathon Oil Corporation 
VLO = Valero part of Parent of Marathon Oil Corporation

Hi,

 

Keystone XL's operator will be TransCanada not Kinder Morgan. You may want to confirm. 

[jaycee + 348]

8 hours ago, Brent Hamrick said:

American Oil is what should be watched. With that being said the oil barons are banking on the fact that we are all too distracted from what they are doing, opening up Alaska for oil drilling.

Be careful what happens if a democrat is the next president? They can reverse a lot of what Trump has done just as he has to democratic policies. I would look for a high risk premium to be given before buying any oil company relying on Alaska for growth.

[DA? + 301]

OK just going through some of the things said above.

Bill kid, that's where oil is putting it's hopes into chemical feed stocks, totally ignoring the fact we are moving away from oil for this. At the moment this is just beginning but don't expect this to tick up to much and won't stop the slide.

jaycee, as I have repeatedly said yes you are correct less investment and chaos in places, long term the world will be more peaceful for the lack of oil being used. And it will be a bit bumpy as this is being widely ignored, Saudi has tried to move on but finding it difficult going. Errr where do you get your news and data from as I am by far not the only one with this opinion. And as I have repeatedly said this is probabilities we are working in.

Serwin, I don't know how many years you have driving but never will drive an EV. If you drive 500 miles without stopping for a decent break you are a danger on the road and over estimate your abilities. Rapid charging now a reality, charging points all over the place, gas stations are closing down now and more will (it'll be a pain in the arse to fill up with gas and more expensive), a large amount of the population seem to be more than happy with EV's look how demand is exploding and so on. Funny thing about many modern sporty cars is the play sounds through your speakers to get that noise. Don't worry in the future there will be ICE car ranches for you, although it may well be a EV with a computer controlling it to seem like an Ice. You know slow, jerky, bad handling and all that, then after you can take a spray can of toxins and spray it in a babies face for the total experience.

Fac226, minimal EV impact, again look up the data on whats going on now, even busses are going EV in massive numbers. And of course EV's are only just part of the electrification of the world, with renewables leading the way. I don't claim to have "advanced thinking", you don't need that to see whats happening. Look at the Lazard Analysis, that's enough to show where the future is.

Bobby P, any time you want a laugh IEA can supply that. No I don't think everyone will go EV in the next few years but by 2025 demand will be sky high, although it takes awhile to change over stock. Yes oil is used in many other ways and those many other ways are beginning to see competition from other sources, it's just hydrogen and carbon really plenty of that stuff about. I justify my stance by looking at the big picture, keeping up with science and tech and not getting my news from something like infowars or seekingalpha. In some ways I find the fossil fuel world hilarious in their denial of whats going on, in other ways it's scary it's vast amounts of stranded assets we are talking about.

jaycee, again, the USA maybe a powerful country but look whats happening in the rest of the world.  

[jaycee + 348]

58 minutes ago, DA? said:

jaycee, as I have repeatedly said yes you are correct less investment and chaos in places, long term the world will be more peaceful for the lack of oil being used. And it will be a bit bumpy as this is being widely ignored, Saudi has tried to move on but finding it difficult going. Errr where do you get your news and data from as I am by far not the only one with this opinion. And as I have repeatedly said this is probabilities we are working in.

jaycee, again, the USA maybe a powerful country but look whats happening in the rest of the world.   

You are missing the point I made and replying to something else my point was that there will not be a slow decline in oil if you think $25 is a sustainable price it will be dramatic and catastrophic  dismissing the wars and destruction as being a 'bit bumpy' is totally missing the point. Look at what the collapse of the oil industry in Venezuela is doing to south America. The war hasn't started yet but the refugees have. Regards there being world peace with no oil how do you account for the centuries of wars before we used oil?
Dont get your comment that USA maybe a powerful country but I should look around the world. You will need to put some context as to what you are replying to.

[DA? + 301]

42 minutes ago, jaycee said:

You are missing the point I made and replying to something else my point was that there will not be a slow decline in oil if you think $25 is a sustainable price it will be dramatic and catastrophic  dismissing the wars and destruction as being a 'bit bumpy' is totally missing the point. Look at what the collapse of the oil industry in Venezuela is doing to south America. The war hasn't started yet but the refugees have. Regards there being world peace with no oil how do you account for the centuries of wars before we used oil?
Dont get your comment that USA maybe a powerful country but I should look around the world. You will need to put some context as to what you are replying to.

I know most producers can't make a profit from $25. My using the term "a bit bumpy" is looking at it in the context that it will be viewed a 100 yrs in the future. Yes people will suffer there will be many deaths and destruction, humans are great at stupidity. Venezuela is not just about oil, it's about horrendous leadership and the USA. You need to ask a historian to explain the wars of old times and what happened especially in the later half of last century. Oil has been mixed up in war and terrorism for some time. And no world peace won't just breakout and we all run around throwing flowers about, as I said people are stupid, but it will get better.

It's just you seem like many here to be looking mainly from a USA view point, the west are becoming just other players not grand masters of the world game.   

[Kit Moore + 50]

I'd like to step in with @SERWIN as well.  I am very lucky to have four cars and my husband five (no, we're not rich, most of them cost between £250-£2k).  We collect classic cars (Fords mostly).  I may end up driving an EV but I have an intense dislike for driving a boring box.  My newest car is a 1986 Ford Sierra, it looks funky, it drives great and the mpg isn't too bad (about 30).  I can't see myself with an EV despite it being cheaper to run, and will probably never use autonomous vehicles.  But I am outside the norm in that I drive a classic car every day and enjoy it.  And yes - I also enjoy the rumble of a V8 (one of my hubby's cars is a V8 Mk1 Granada!).

As for @DA?'s point about charging points, yes there are more but they require a lot of investment, and fast charging points are not as widespread as you imagine.  I would expect them to be integrated into existing petrol stations rather than having brand new stations developed - it makes financial sense.  So although charge points are increasing, I cannot see petrol stations decreasing in number, even if the number of actual petrol points decreases.  Your talk of driving an hour to find gas stations I find quite vacuous with no basis.  I would be interested in how you arrived at this conclusion against my scenario above.

[DA? + 301]

2 minutes ago, Kit Moore said:

I'd like to step in with @SERWIN as well.  I am very lucky to have four cars and my husband five (no, we're not rich, most of them cost between £250-£2k).  We collect classic cars (Fords mostly).  I may end up driving an EV but I have an intense dislike for driving a boring box.  My newest car is a 1986 Ford Sierra, it looks funky, it drives great and the mpg isn't too bad (about 30).  I can't see myself with an EV despite it being cheaper to run, and will probably never use autonomous vehicles.  But I am outside the norm in that I drive a classic car every day and enjoy it.  And yes - I also enjoy the rumble of a V8 (one of my hubby's cars is a V8 Mk1 Granada!).

As for @DA?'s point about charging points, yes there are more but they require a lot of investment, and fast charging points are not as widespread as you imagine.  I would expect them to be integrated into existing petrol stations rather than having brand new stations developed - it makes financial sense.  So although charge points are increasing, I cannot see petrol stations decreasing in number, even if the number of actual petrol points decreases.  Your talk of driving an hour to find gas stations I find quite vacuous with no basis.  I would be interested in how you arrived at this conclusion against my scenario above.

If you are prepared to pay the extra cost of an ICE you will be able to do this but in increasingly restricted areas. Cities are already going in this direction. Then autonomous vehicles, these change everything, really the changes on society and economy are staggering when you start working through the details. Problems for those that still want to drive are many. Again you will be restricted, 1.3 million people are killed on the roads, AV's will be far safer so again restriction on areas. As AV's need far less infrastructure and so forth than humans the costs will be put on to those that continue to want to drive, it works out to be considerable. Governments will see a cost drop associated with accidents, which again is actually massive when everything is taken into account so regulation and incentives will come from the top. Your insurance if you can still get it will be huge. Driving cars will become like riding horses an expensive hobby in the end.

Charging points. We are still at the beginning of the EV story but already go take a look at Tesla's charging points across the USA and still expanding rapidly and then theres all the other companies now installing them. Although my nearest charge point is actually just a couple of meters away from me, one of my house sockets, will do most of the people most of the time. Some petrol stations are installing charge points but the installation costs are similar to other places as they still need to run in larger cables. They also seem to want to charge far more than other charge point installers.

The reasoning for less gas stations is they tend not to be very economical even at present, one of my closest ones closed down earlier this year. The problem comes from the economy of scale, as less gas is sold each station makes less money on an already tight budget. Then as less petrol is used through out the area the distribution infrastructure becomes more expensive. Also applies to the production of the gas. This means gas prices increase creating a self feeding loop as more people bulk at the price and turn to EV's. It's already a pain in my rural area, I often have to make a special trip to fill my ICE with dinosaur juice, that's 40 minutes on the road.

[jaycee + 348]

59 minutes ago, DA? said:

I know most producers can't make a profit from $25. My using the term "a bit bumpy" is looking at it in the context that it will be viewed a 100 yrs in the future. Yes people will suffer there will be many deaths and destruction, humans are great at stupidity. Venezuela is not just about oil, it's about horrendous leadership and the USA. You need to ask a historian to explain the wars of old times and what happened especially in the later half of last century. Oil has been mixed up in war and terrorism for some time. And no world peace won't just breakout and we all run around throwing flowers about, as I said people are stupid, but it will get better.

It's just you seem like many here to be looking mainly from a USA view point, the west are becoming just other players not grand masters of the world game.   

So a few 100,000 dying maybe more if somebody pulls out a nuke plus probable large populations shift like Venezuela is worth paying for a greener world? I do wonder about people who believe getting rid of oil is not going to be without major downsides. So far we have had 2 countries going green faster than most Canada and Germany both are finding life is not always greener on the other side, I am sure you know the problems so will not waste pixels. Going green is making some people lots of money that is the main reason we are doing it from what I can see, many will die because of it and there will be large upheavals in populations in 100 years there will be another big change that will make someone rich that will be foisted upon our children's children I am slightly wary of the people behind our green revolution and their what they would paint as their desire to make the world a better place. EVs when/if they become the major form of transport will bring their own problems, I foresee a large rise in pedestrians dying as they dont hear the traffic for example I am sure they will fix the problem its not rocket science but those that die will not notice.  Changing to a renewables future is not the universal panacea you try to paint.

Venezuela is purely about oil, when there were lots of it there was no migration or people dying of hunger now they have very little oil revenue we had both. What or who caused this is irrelvant the problem is lack of oil revenue. This is a blueprint of where other oil dependant countries will go in the future.

I study history a lot not a historian but know a fair bit and oil has only caused wars in the last 30 to 40 years we will continue to have wars in the future without oil so your point the world would be safer without oil is false it is just an excuse to wage war used by people who would find another if oil was not handy.

The irony, I have been accused of being anti American on this website. I can assure you I am not American and live in UK and have no real love or hatred of the UK either its a convenient place to live currently. I strive very hard to have no bias on anything I just point out awkward points to others with fixed views and these people usually paint their prejudices on me so they can try and justify their viewpoints you are doing the same as many others before.

 

[DA? + 301]

3 minutes ago, jaycee said:

So a few 100,000 dying maybe more if somebody pulls out a nuke plus probable large populations shift like Venezuela is worth paying for a greener world? I do wonder about people who believe getting rid of oil is not going to be without major downsides. So far we have had 2 countries going green faster than most Canada and Germany both are finding life is not always greener on the other side, I am sure you know the problems so will not waste pixels. Going green is making some people lots of money that is the main reason we are doing it from what I can see, many will die because of it and there will be large upheavals in populations in 100 years there will be another big change that will make someone rich that will be foisted upon our children's children I am slightly wary of the people behind our green revolution and their what they would paint as their desire to make the world a better place. EVs when/if they become the major form of transport will bring their own problems, I foresee a large rise in pedestrians dying as they dont hear the traffic for example I am sure they will fix the problem its not rocket science but those that die will not notice.  Changing to a renewables future is not the universal panacea you try to paint.

Venezuela is purely about oil, when there were lots of it there was no migration or people dying of hunger now they have very little oil revenue we had both. What or who caused this is irrelvant the problem is lack of oil revenue. This is a blueprint of where other oil dependant countries will go in the future.

I study history a lot not a historian but know a fair bit and oil has only caused wars in the last 30 to 40 years we will continue to have wars in the future without oil so your point the world would be safer without oil is false it is just an excuse to wage war used by people who would find another if oil was not handy.

The irony, I have been accused of being anti American on this website. I can assure you I am not American and live in UK and have no real love or hatred of the UK either its a convenient place to live currently. I strive very hard to have no bias on anything I just point out awkward points to others with fixed views and these people usually paint their prejudices on me so they can try and justify their viewpoints you are doing the same as many others before.

 

There are always down sides to everything it's just going for the one with least harm. Yes people are making money from renewables and going "green", that's the great thing about it, they are becoming the best economic option.

Again you are thinking in a singular dimension on technologies along with EV's soon come self driving, far safer than us meat bags. That will considerably cut down on the 1.3 million people killed on the roads a year. Then theres all the pollution killing and harming people and so on, makes our recent wars look far less (struggling for the appropriate word here) but you get the picture. One death is one to much but unfortunately we have to go for the least evil option.

No renewables don't solve everything but are a start. It's why the world needs to get realistic on whats about to occur in many industries and take steps to plan for the future. 

No my point about wars is not false, deaths due to wars have been going down especially when looked at when so many people are about now. Taking another factor out helps.

Apologies but your view point is that I have found not in all people of course from the USA but many I have dealt with (born in the UK but have lived in the USA as well), very western orientated.   

[jaycee + 348]

40 minutes ago, DA? said:

There are always down sides to everything it's just going for the one with least harm. Yes people are making money from renewables and going "green", that's the great thing about it, they are becoming the best economic option. 

You say going green is the best economic option there are many who would disagree comparisons always contain some very dodgy assumptions I have seen in the past. The one that really annoys me is the common assumption that the power output of a turbine is what it is rated at when in reality it is only that if the wind is blowing at the appropriate speed. Another is that no costs are allowed for the complete redesign of the national grid to manage intermittent power or even the power stations needed to back up the renewables if the wind doesn't blow at night. I could go on. As per all your arguments you make broad assumptions that it will all work out right in the end I have a different view based on 30 years in engineering design. It can all be made to work but you need to look at all the real costs human and financial and not dismiss them and add in a safety factor for the issues yet to appear.

44 minutes ago, DA? said:

Again you are thinking in a singular dimension on technologies along with EV's soon come self driving, far safer than us meat bags. That will considerably cut down on the 1.3 million people killed on the roads a year. Then theres all the pollution killing and harming people and so on, makes our recent wars look far less (struggling for the appropriate word here) but you get the picture. One death is one to much but unfortunately we have to go for the least evil option.

EVs  will no doubt become safer to drive, just as applying self drive to petrol car will make them safer. As I said they will solve the problem of not hearing an EV but people will die, brush past the obvious but its a fact. There will be other problems. How about hijacking self drive vehicles? That will become easier as robbers can just step in front of a car to stop it. Automatic collision avoidance will kick in, I have driven in a few places where stopping is the last thing I want to do. There is many things that those who wish to profit from changing the world are pushing to the side as they dont care about the problems they will cause.

45 minutes ago, DA? said:

No renewables don't solve everything but are a start. It's why the world needs to get realistic on whats about to occur in many industries and take steps to plan for the future. 

Glad to see you are coming round however my point would be why is change so inevitable when the costs are still high? What is pushing this are those that want to profit but care less for the consequences or the costs others will pay bit like snake oil salesmen. Its unlikely the tide can be turned as so many people are brainwashed so the world will have to get used to it but change is not easy which brings me back to my originals point there will be large problems.

1 hour ago, DA? said:

No my point about wars is not false, deaths due to wars have been going down especially when looked at when so many people are about now. Taking another factor out helps. 

They have gone down as there are many nuclear and biological weapons stored around the planet making people scared to start a war I am not seeing the connection with renewables saving the world here.

 

1 hour ago, DA? said:

Apologies but your view point is that I have found not in all people of course from the USA but many I have dealt with (born in the UK but have lived in the USA as well), very western orientated.  

As I said you are painting your prejudices on me I am pointing out valid problems which you are brushing aside with flippancy, dismissing countries going through massive upheavals as bumps in the road. There are many problems in changing the world to renewables and many are not even know yet, as you drain the lake the rocks become clear. Changing the infrastructure to accommodate renewable is going to release massive amounts of CO2 as well and for what? There are too many humans on the world that is the fundamental problem we keep consuming resources and producing CO2 bringing in renewables only means even more people can live on the earth, initially with a lower carbon footprint but over time they will consume more resources so this is not a solution but a sticking plaster being applied by those that wish to profit from rather than solve the problem.

I think we are moving of the basic question rasied at the start of oil at $25

[DA? + 301]

36 minutes ago, jaycee said:

You say going green is the best economic option there are many who would disagree comparisons always contain some very dodgy assumptions I have seen in the past. The one that really annoys me is the common assumption that the power output of a turbine is what it is rated at when in reality it is only that if the wind is blowing at the appropriate speed. Another is that no costs are allowed for the complete redesign of the national grid to manage intermittent power or even the power stations needed to back up the renewables if the wind doesn't blow at night. I could go on. As per all your arguments you make broad assumptions that it will all work out right in the end I have a different view based on 30 years in engineering design. It can all be made to work but you need to look at all the real costs human and financial and not dismiss them and add in a safety factor for the issues yet to appear.

EVs  will no doubt become safer to drive, just as applying self drive to petrol car will make them safer. As I said they will solve the problem of not hearing an EV but people will die, brush past the obvious but its a fact. There will be other problems. How about hijacking self drive vehicles? That will become easier as robbers can just step in front of a car to stop it. Automatic collision avoidance will kick in, I have driven in a few places where stopping is the last thing I want to do. There is many things that those who wish to profit from changing the world are pushing to the side as they dont care about the problems they will cause.

Glad to see you are coming round however my point would be why is change so inevitable when the costs are still high? What is pushing this are those that want to profit but care less for the consequences or the costs others will pay bit like snake oil salesmen. Its unlikely the tide can be turned as so many people are brainwashed so the world will have to get used to it but change is not easy which brings me back to my originals point there will be large problems.

They have gone down as there are many nuclear and biological weapons stored around the planet making people scared to start a war I am not seeing the connection with renewables saving the world here.

 

As I said you are painting your prejudices on me I am pointing out valid problems which you are brushing aside with flippancy, dismissing countries going through massive upheavals as bumps in the road. There are many problems in changing the world to renewables and many are not even know yet, as you drain the lake the rocks become clear. Changing the infrastructure to accommodate renewable is going to release massive amounts of CO2 as well and for what? There are too many humans on the world that is the fundamental problem we keep consuming resources and producing CO2 bringing in renewables only means even more people can live on the earth, initially with a lower carbon footprint but over time they will consume more resources so this is not a solution but a sticking plaster being applied by those that wish to profit from rather than solve the problem.

I think we are moving of the basic question rasied at the start of oil at $25

I'll make this quick.

First point look at Lazards Analysis and the trends.

Er, stopping and hijacking a AV you are not going to take it anywhere and there will be plenty of cameras. On the whole many people will be saved, there are always acceptations to a rule. No I didn't brush past it, it's just you can't look at one tech in isolation it doesn't work that way.

Er no, my point of view has always been that there is no perfect answer. Again least evil option.

There are several reasons to have a war ideological, that's not going to change much. Resources, not worth fighting for for a long time now, trade is far better. But people are dumb so they do, energy has been one, renewables are great as unlike fossil fuels they are far more wide spread and also will bring in more trade with grids connecting countries. Resources aren't rare in the universe but that's a total different website.

I think you need to go and study what is involved in changing the world over to renewables, it's an industry comparable to the fossil fuel world but creating more sustainable cheaper energy.

Yup $25 a barrel we will see sometime next decade, more likely mid decade. 

 

 

[Brad Lindsey + 2]

I see oil prices getting to a price around $100-$125 with corrections up and down based on short term supply demand interruptions. The big oil will be closer to transitioning into alt energies. The new production will have slowed because of less exploration. Oil will still be primary or 50/50 of market share in 10 years. Supply is less correlational to demand. It's still a money maker because so many applications. We might even see to $150.00. If we are all still here in 10 years.

[DA? + 301]

28 minutes ago, DA? said:

As I said they will solve the problem of not hearing an EV but people will die, brush past the obvious but its a fact

Just thinking about it isn't there a law in the uK about to come out meaning all new EV's will have to make a noise under a certain speed, your in the uK you should know.

[BigJets + 87]

USA will own the best market for oil in 10 years.  Best inventories, best prices, best deliveries, safest investment.  $60-$80 range is optimal, this way everyone makes a little bit and we keep fuel under $3 at the pumps.  Bc the rest of the world is on fire and depends on the USA for safe transportation there is a likelihood for oil to move above $80.  Without USA support for safe transportation oil quickly moves above $80.  The entire market, along with all other markets, is solely dependent on the USA.  I expect a major war is coming 10-50 years.  I hope USA is able to navigate itself out of the conflict as much as possible and mitigate the damages from afar.  $25 oil is fantasy, crazy talk.        

[jaycee + 348]

2 hours ago, DA? said:

First point look at Lazards Analysis and the trends.

Had a look and on page 3 it proved my point thanks.

Analysis excludes integration (e.g grid and conventional generation investment to overcome system intermittency) costs for intermittent energy.

2 hours ago, DA? said:

Er, stopping and hijacking a AV you are not going to take it anywhere and there will be plenty of cameras. On the whole many people will be saved, there are always acceptations to a rule. No I didn't brush past it, it's just you can't look at one tech in isolation it doesn't work that way.

The point of robbing carsI I was thinking about was to relieve the occupants of their money its easier to steal empty vehicles. Its a solvable problem however allow system override that gives you another problem though.. Anyway I am just making the point there are many issues.

2 hours ago, DA? said:

Er no, my point of view has always been that there is no perfect answer. Again least evil option.

However you keep pushing the EVs and renewables rejecting all negatives as irrelevant to the perceived greater good of your view. I have pointed out many evil problems associated your view and how so far countries fully trying to adopt renewables have failed.

2 hours ago, DA? said:

There are several reasons to have a war ideological, that's not going to change much. Resources, not worth fighting for for a long time now, trade is far better.

Wait to you see the wars we will have over water in a few decades! Resouces are worth fighting for when they are scare right now they are not.

 

2 hours ago, DA? said:

I think you need to go and study what is involved in changing the world over to renewables, it's an industry comparable to the fossil fuel world but creating more sustainable cheaper energy. 

I have a pretty fair idea a smart grid is not cheap for a start then there is all the hook ups for those turbines and solar panels scattered all over the place. If I may refer you to Lazards page 3 as quoted above.

2 hours ago, DA? said:

I think you need to go and study what is involved in changing the world over to renewables, it's an industry comparable to the fossil fuel world but creating more sustainable cheaper energy. 

I think you need to look at the negatives sometimes instead of just the positives. My experience of designing large engineering projects is that they never ever work out at the cost you plan or work correctly first time. I actually spoke to a colleague the other day who is commissioning a bio digester and gas turbine power system he said it is vastly over budget and way behind schedule. Renewables are no different from anything else you need to factor in the downside

 

1 hour ago, DA? said:

Just thinking about it isn't there a law in the uK about to come out meaning all new EV's will have to make a noise under a certain speed, your in the uK you should know.

Theresa has not sent me details of that yet I will ask her next time she calls.

Edited November 16, 2018 by jaycee

[oilhog + 2]

Follow inflation and it will end up swinging from 40ish - 80ish 10 years out.  This whole talk of EVs taking over in 4 years in non-sense. How long do consumers keep their cars? 3-7 years? What makes people think they are going to convert to a EV vehicle when gas prices are under $3.  Plus that's ignoring the airline, shipping, military and industrial markets..  

Renewable energy is great but without battery storage capacity it is unreliable.  You can't turn off the gas plant and hope the wind is blowing enough that day to feed the grid.

Battery charging infrastructure alone will take a half-decade to build out, 1-2 years planning, 1 year engineering, 6 months funding, 6 months construction

[DA? + 301]

3 minutes ago, jaycee said:

Had a look and on page 3 it proved my point thanks.

Analysis excludes integration (e.g grid and conventional generation investment to overcome system intermittency) costs for intermittent energy.

The point of robbing cars is to relieve the occupants of thier money. Its a solvable problem, allow system override, but I am just making the point there are many issues.

However you keep pushing the EVs and renewables rejecting all negatives as irrelevant to the perceived greater good of your view. I have pointed out many evil problems associated your view and how so far countries fully trying to adopt renewables have failed.

Wait to you see the wars we will have over water in a few decades! Resouces are worth fighting for when they are scare right now they are not.

 

I have a pretty fair idea a smart grid is not cheap for a start then there is all the hook ups for those turbines and solar panels scattered all over the place. If I may refer you to Lazards page 3 as quoted above.

I think you need to look at the negatives sometimes instead of just the positives. My experience of designing large engineering projects is that they never ever work out as the cost you plan or work correctly first time. I actually spoke to a colleague the other day who is commissioning a bio digester and gas turbine power system he said it is vastly over budget and way behind schedule. Renewables are no different from anything else you need to factor in the downside

 

Theresa has not sent me details of that yet I will ask her next time she calls.

Cost are very reasonable, it'd didn't prove your point at all, have a look at Jordan's Green corridor they are building for all their new renewables. With the lowest bid by panel manufacturer Jinko, which bid $0.02488/kWh. With that sort of cost a load of infrastructure can be put in.

Issues that really aren't issues, just for a change.

Countries are adapting to high renewable sources very well, despite all the FUD.

Renewables are actually part of the answer to water shortages. With a large amount of renewables there will be times of over production. One great way of using this is pumping water up, then using that pressure to put it through a desalination plant. Lovely.

A decentralised system is far more robust. Electronics are actually no that expensive today. Look what the fossil fuel world today does with it's pipe lines, makes putting in a smart large DC grid look cheap.

Nothing turns out as planned but it's still the economic choice. As I said once or twice before it's the least evil that sometimes you have to go with. Really your points are vague and don't show at all renewables are more expensive.