OT US Oil stocks.

[johnson86-1]

You really think the conversion has been warp speed? This **** has been talked about for decades. 17ing decades. Nothing was done for decades. 17ing decades. Hell, for most of that time there was pushback as to whether or not we are even contributing to the earth's warming. Really, 17ing carbon dioxide being released all over the place, carbon dioxide being fully accepted as trapping heat in the atmosphere, yet preachers and politicians would claim man isnt hurting the planet and it isnt warming. F17S.

A snowball builds speed as it rolls down a mountain. This issue started out small, but it grew and as it grew, it also got faster. If you think our changing to alt energies has been warp speed, how do you feel about the increase in man made environmental issues over the last 15 years?
Someone posted this video on here last week. Turn the sound up and you will understand whats actually changing at warp speed- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDS52cM7Wf4&t=38s

Nobody was questioning the amount of heat CO2 traps. That's reasonably simple physics. People were questioning the large positive feedback mechanism that was used to get to the higher levels of warming. And also questioning the net impacts from warmer nighttime temperatures.

There's also the fact that the science is pretty irrelevant because the richest people beating the drum the loudest (who claim to believe "the science") are not willing to sacrifice their consumption level at all. If you can't get them to reduce consumption to any meaningful level, how are you going to convince poor people in China, India, and Africa to stay poor so that we don't have global warming?

 

[johnson86-1]

I genuinely cant figure out what is reality when it comes to oil production.

One side yells 'drill baby drill' and claims restrictions are killing us.
One side points to production and says the numbers are higher than ever and we net export.

Pretty sure both are using numbers that support their narrative and ignore other numbers.

The fact that it's hard to figure out is why the federal government shouldn't put it's thumb on the scales against production. There are a lot of problems/challenges the federal government can't fix. The fact that OPEC (really Saudia Arabia) can open up the spigot and hammer US producers is going to always add some uncertainty that suppresses US oil and gas investment. The federal government shouldn't add to it. If we want to hold back reserves for strategic reasons because of a belief that we will hit peak oil, there is possibly some merit to that but it should be based on a long term strategy, not whipsawed backa nd forth. Of course, if you believe that we're really going to transition to green energy sources anytime soon, you should want US to make it as easy as possible to maximize U Sproduction, both because that will deprive pretty bad people of revenue and also because it will generally be produced more cleanly than foreign oil and gas.

 

[mstateglfr]

I am 57 years old and I have been hearing this bull **** forever. When I was a little boy, I was scared to death hearing the earth is going to go into another ice age in 30 years because of pollution. Did not happen. In the 80's all I heard was acid rain and a hole in the ozone layer. Yep that scared the **** out of me but nothing happened. Then it went from new ice age in the 70's to global warming in the 90's. That did not pan out like they thought and now it is man made climate change. The narrative keeps changing. It's all about grant money to scientist and university. It is all bull ****. I agree the climate is changing. The climate has always change and if every human on this earth disappeared today the climate would keep on changing. Ice caps form and ice caps melt. That is caused by polarity shift. There is a massing polarity shift going on right now. The South pole move more in the past 100 years than it did in the previous 1000 years. That is more scary than carbon dioxide.

I am not falling for the bull **** any more. They over played their hand.

Of course climate changes over time. It changes before we were here and it will change after we are gone. That does not mean humans are not impacting the change.
I am sorry to hear that you have sworn off reality because people drew incorrect conclusions based on the data they had at the time. I get it, it can be frustrating to see predictions change and that causes doubt. You know what has coincided with your existence on this earth? Basically the entirety of modern computing is contained within the time you have been around. The advancements we have made in your lifetime are so exponentially large that it is difficult to even compare them to the prior 100, 500, 1000 years. But hey- keep pouting at early predictive modeling being incorrect.

Do you also reject modern healthcare because we didnt know what a virus was 150 years ago? Do you reject modern healthcare because we used to think sickness was God punishing us for our sins?
...or do you accept modern healthcare and recognize that science changes as more is discovered?

 

[PooPopsBaldHead]

explain why us and Europe halting purchases of Russian oil drives up oil prices significantly? There are other buyers in the oil market like the Chinese that could start buying up Russian oil which could offset some of the loss of the American and European market for the Russians. I would think the Russians would try to sell at a lower price to attract other buyers, and if China began to buy significant quantities of it, then they would buy less from other suppliers (Saudi Arabia for example). In turn, the US and Europe would now buy the Saudi oil that used to be purchased by China. It seems there are too many producers and buyers that an embargo of Russian oil by only a portion of the world would cause a significant price increase.

Yesterday, the global market was exactly the right size, today we are +/-10% short. Until demand and supply balance through supply increases and demand destruction, we are all in a bidding war for the limited supply of fuel. We will keep bidding it up until enough of us quit going to the auction (gas pump) everyday.

So without behavior change a 10% supply or demand shock could lead to a 10x increase in prices. The only two options we have are to raise prices until demand and supply balance (we usually overshoot in both directions) or to ration purchases... "Oh Mr waves for the last 12 months you bought 60 gallons of gas a month ordinarily, so now you only get 50. Figure it out." In free markets we go with the price thing.

The simple solution would be for everyone to simultaneously cut driving (consumption) by 20% for a month or two. We would end up like the Spring of 2020 with so much supply there's nowhere to put it. Prices would crater and buy time for new production. But that's not likely to happen.

 

[Crazy Cotton]

What's "normal oil production" in the US, and how far away are we from that, currently?

 

[mstateglfr]

Nobody was questioning the amount of heat CO2 traps. That's reasonably simple physics. People were questioning the large positive feedback mechanism that was used to get to the higher levels of warming. And also questioning the net impacts from warmer nighttime temperatures.

There's also the fact that the science is pretty irrelevant because the richest people beating the drum the loudest (who claim to believe "the science") are not willing to sacrifice their consumption level at all. If you can't get them to reduce consumption to any meaningful level, how are you going to convince poor people in China, India, and Africa to stay poor so that we don't have global warming?

Your last question is one that I have asked and wondered about for years. The US could use no more carbon based power overnight and other countries would continue to spew toxins which would keep hurting us all. Countries that are too poor to move away from chipping down trees for cooking fuel will continue to deforest and pollute. Countries will continue to dump toxic chemicals into waterways and into the air. etc etc etc.

While I have asked that very question and continue to not know the answer, I can say that using that lack of answer as reason to do nothing is pretty dumb. A celebrity may fly on a jet, but that doesnt mean countries should stop trying to reduce man's effect on climate.

Grapes in Italy and France were total **** last year due to drought and record setting flash floods. Grapes in England were incredible because the conditions there were finally what it is expected to be like in France and Italy. Changes in climate will benefit some and hurt some.
With that said, it seems pretty simple to think that we would want to reduce the change if possible. The climates in our country are pretty damn delicate and significant changes will cause untold costs to industries and lives.

 

[dawgman42]

Dorn's understanding of the "markets"
View attachment 24019

 

[Crazy Cotton]

I don't get this. You think all that was imaginary?
For example, acid rain was real and awful stuff. It killed fish and trees, acidified soil causing problems up and down the food chain, etc.

So there were amendments to the Clean Air Act, targeting sulfur and nitrogen emissions. Coal plants got scrubbers, cars got catalytic converters and other emission controls, etc.

Guess what? They worked pretty well! In the US, sulfur emissions dropped from 26 million tons in 1980 to 11.4 million tons in 2008, Nitrogen fell a similar percentage in that time frame. I live in East TN. Our streams have recovered to the point that their pH levels no longer classified as acidic, and were seeing the brookies come back, salamander recovery, etc. That happened because we did something about it, not because acid rain was a conspiracy theory. Do you not get that?

 

[CookieMonster.sixpack]

With that said, it seems pretty simple to think that we would want to reduce the change if possible. The climates in our country are pretty damn delicate and significant changes will cause untold costs to industries and lives.

A planet that is billions of years old has a climate so delicate it can be decimated in a matter of centuries. That's a take for sure.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

I don't get this. You think all that was imaginary?
For example, acid rain was real and awful stuff. It killed fish and trees, acidified soil causing problems up and down the food chain, etc.

So there were amendments to the Clean Air Act, targeting sulfur and nitrogen emissions. Coal plants got scrubbers, cars got catalytic converters and other emission controls, etc.

Guess what? They worked pretty well! In the US, sulfur emissions dropped from 26 million tons in 1980 to 11.4 million tons in 2008, Nitrogen fell a similar percentage in that time frame. I live in East TN. Our streams have recovered to the point that their pH levels no longer classified as acidic, and were seeing the brookies come back, salamander recovery, etc. That happened because we did something about it, not because acid rain was a conspiracy theory. Do you not get that?

What I'm kind of thinking here and wondering about your thoughts here is that while short-term oil production will be up big time, that it's going to mean that electric/hybrid will happen in the US much more sooner than anticipated.

 

[mstateglfr]

A planet that is billions of years old has a climate so delicate it can be decimated in a matter of centuries. That's a take for sure.

The post you replied to was specifically mentioning the many climates within the US. And yeah, they are delicate. Why dont we grow cotton in North Dakota? Why arent oranges grown in Wisconsin? Why are grapes grown in Georgia used for jam and not wine, unlike those grown around Sonoma CA?
This **** shouldnt be difficult to understand- just read about predicted issues with a 2 degree Celsius increase in global temp. Apply that locally.

 

[Cooterpoot]

What I'm kind of thinking here and wondering about your thoughts here is that while short-term oil production will be up big time, that it's going to mean that electric/hybrid will happen in the US much more sooner than anticipated.

Not until they're affordable and our power grid can handle them. This idea we can jump straight to it is false. Then, we've got to deal with China for the batteries. All in all, it makes no difference in the big picture at this point.

 

[GloryDawg]

I don't get this. You think all that was imaginary?
For example, acid rain was real and awful stuff. It killed fish and trees, acidified soil causing problems up and down the food chain, etc.

So there were amendments to the Clean Air Act, targeting sulfur and nitrogen emissions. Coal plants got scrubbers, cars got catalytic converters and other emission controls, etc.

Guess what? They worked pretty well! In the US, sulfur emissions dropped from 26 million tons in 1980 to 11.4 million tons in 2008, Nitrogen fell a similar percentage in that time frame. I live in East TN. Our streams have recovered to the point that their pH levels no longer classified as acidic, and were seeing the brookies come back, salamander recovery, etc. That happened because we did something about it, not because acid rain was a conspiracy theory. Do you not get that?

Yes it is all bull ****.

 

[GloryDawg]

Of course climate changes over time. It changes before we were here and it will change after we are gone. That does not mean humans are not impacting the change.
I am sorry to hear that you have sworn off reality because people drew incorrect conclusions based on the data they had at the time. I get it, it can be frustrating to see predictions change and that causes doubt. You know what has coincided with your existence on this earth? Basically the entirety of modern computing is contained within the time you have been around. The advancements we have made in your lifetime are so exponentially large that it is difficult to even compare them to the prior 100, 500, 1000 years. But hey- keep pouting at early predictive modeling being incorrect.

Do you also reject modern healthcare because we didnt know what a virus was 150 years ago? Do you reject modern healthcare because we used to think sickness was God punishing us for our sins?
...or do you accept modern healthcare and recognize that science changes as more is discovered?

The data is not correct. They figure **** the key boards with the data. They constantly change years to make their formulas work. Like I said the narrative keeps changing. It's all about their addiction to the billions of dollars spent on it.

 

[mcdawg22]

Not until they're affordable and our power grid can handle them. This idea we can jump straight to it is false. Then, we've got to deal with China for the batteries. All in all, it makes no difference in the big picture at this point.

That’s where I’m at. The infrastructure is not in place for this. Could you imagine the lines waiting for charge stations if there was mass adoption?

 

[thatsbaseball]

And don't forget those pesky utilities.

 

[thatsbaseball]

So what the hell was Biden thinking when he broadsided domestic fossil fuel production his first day in office ?

 

[Cooterpoot]

Look around. No gas stations are moving to add fast charging stations. The government is going to fund some that (the government ...lol) but it's not going to suddenly change. MS will be last in line too.

 

[johnson86-1]

Your last question is one that I have asked and wondered about for years. The US could use no more carbon based power overnight and other countries would continue to spew toxins which would keep hurting us all. Countries that are too poor to move away from chipping down trees for cooking fuel will continue to deforest and pollute. Countries will continue to dump toxic chemicals into waterways and into the air. etc etc etc.

While I have asked that very question and continue to not know the answer, I can say that using that lack of answer as reason to do nothing is pretty dumb. A celebrity may fly on a jet, but that doesnt mean countries should stop trying to reduce man's effect on climate.

Grapes in Italy and France were total **** last year due to drought and record setting flash floods. Grapes in England were incredible because the conditions there were finally what it is expected to be like in France and Italy. Changes in climate will benefit some and hurt some.
With that said, it seems pretty simple to think that we would want to reduce the change if possible.

You could thing that, except obviously we don't. Just by virtue of being on this board, there's a pretty decent chance you are part of a family that has two cars, drives a combined 30k miles a year, probably flies commercial once or twice a year, keeps the temperature of your house (that is likely >2,500 sq ft) between 68 and 74 degrees year round, eat beef or chicken 12 meals a week or more, etc. And that would probably be an improvement for most of the people advocating for (other people to make) sacrifices, and they wouldn't even be willing to reduce their consumption to something that would have seemed basically rich a few decades ago. I don't think we'd get poorer people to put significant restraints on themselves regardless, but they definitely aren't going to be making themselves poor so the average upper middle class american can keep anything like their lifestyle and the average rich person doesn't make any sacrifice other than paying some insignificant taxes and giving lip service to the issue.

The climates in our country are pretty damn delicate and significant changes will cause untold costs to industries and lives.

Even if you buy the fact that climates are delicate (I'm not sure they are to CO2; someplaces are to things like deforestation), so what? We basically rebuild a lot of our infrastructure over the course of a couple of decades anyway. Most housing stock has significant investment every three or four decades. If climate really changes because of CO2, we'll adjust. There will be painful costs to that, but I don't see any reason to think they will be greater/worse than imposing a lot of costs on poorer people now.

 

[mstateglfr]

What costs are we imposing on poor people with regard to this topic? I want to be on the same page here.

Also, your initial analysis is pretty spot on