Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - rboyd

Pages: [1]
Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: April 30, 2019, 12:51:13 AM »
Report: New Mexico’s Methane Problem Worsens as Permian Production Soars

Application of cutting-edge research and new Permian data indicate New Mexico’s methane emissions are five times higher than what EPA data suggest


ValueAnalyst (@ValueAnalyst1) 4/1/19, 12:51 PM
WORST in a DECADE @Daimler

Explains why @WPipperger is  >:(
Chart below: Daimler AG Gross Profit Margin, by Quarter.

Wolfgang Pipperger is the *CFO* of Mercedes-Benz Central Europe!
His Twitter profile (not blue-check verified) includes: “EV skeptic, Tesla short“

"countries manage to cut GHG emissions to the targets outlined in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, winter temperatures in the Arctic will still be 3 to 5°C higher by 2050 and 5 to 9°C higher by 2080, relative to 1986–2005 levels. In fact, even if we stopped all emissions overnight, winter temperatures in the Arctic will still increase by 4 to 5°C compared to the late twentieth century."

Anthropocene commented #756 in the "Places becoming less livable" thread on the misquote in the Guardian re. Preindustrial when the UN paper says 3-5 C higher is relative to 1986-2005 levels.

Policy and solutions / Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« on: March 24, 2019, 12:05:30 AM »
It would be great in some ways if this were a practical fix. I am very skeptical of the economics of schemes that turn co2 into fuel. Initially the fuel was burned to extract the energy. Due to energy losses in all systems putting the energy back in will require more energy then is extracted on combustion. I didn't look for information on how efficient their process is. Further energy losses in an ice engine are huge. Of the thermal energy produced in combustion modern cars are between 17 and 21% efficient at power to the wheels. BEV's are 59-62% efficient at converting electricity to power to the wheels.
I am sure a long discussion could ensue about efficiency numbers. Many higher numbers may report a fraction of the process, say just the efficiency of the engine. I am not claiming these are definitive numbers. I am only trying to make the point that is not a solution. Where would all that energy come from. Wouldn't it be better utilized in a BEV.
I hope I got these CO2 calculations right if not please correct me.
Assuming 420ppm and 290 baseline CO^2 that is 130ppm extra carbon.
Correction (Thats what I get for not checking a calculation on the Internet thanks Crandles) .0130(.0000130) *  44.0095 / 28.97 * 5.148x10^18=1.017*10^17(14) tons of extra co2
Calculation from
At a cost of 100 dollars a ton.
1.017*10^19(16) dollars

1*10^3       one thousand
1*10^6      one million
1*10^9      one billion
1*10^12   one trillion
1*10^15   one quadrillion
1*10^18   one quintillion
So basically 10 quintillion (10 quadrillion)[/b] dollars
I am guessing but probably more than all the money spent in the world throughout time.  Notice also that a 1000 fold reduction in cost to ten cents, a very unlikely prospect, does not make it close to feasible.  Further  just mitigation current CO2 emmisions assuming 2ppm per year would be  1.564*10^1512 dollars or 1.6 quadrillion(trillion) dollars. Even with a thousand fold reduction in cost 1.6 trillion dollars is still a lot of money. (while 1.6 billion dollars is still a lot of money that would be an amount a few governments could afford)  For comparison the entire world economy was 85 trillion in 2018.
Unless I (did) screwed up somewhere in my calculations I can’t (don't) see how this or any similar tech is anything but a distraction.

Policy and solutions / Re: If not Capitalism... then What? And, How?
« on: March 01, 2019, 01:13:34 AM »
Barker at n+1 on Volcker and the great bloodletting:

"In Akron, the commercial blood bank reduced the prices it would pay by 20 percent due to the glut of laid-off tireworkers lining up to bleed."

"a price index doesn’t have a spine or a seam; the broken bodies and rent garments of the early 1980s belonged to people. Reagan economic adviser Michael Mussa was nearer the truth when he said that “to establish its credibility, the Federal Reserve had to demonstrate its willingness to spill blood, lots of blood, other people’s blood.”  "

" This was the practical embodiment of Milton Friedman’s idea that there was a natural rate of unemployment, and attempts to go below it would always cause inflation ... there need to be millions of unemployed workers for the economy to work as it should."

" Events like these helped deliver the coup de grâce to the ambitious third world politics of the 1970s, exemplified by the call for a New International Economic Order "

“Volcker was selected because he was the candidate of Wall Street. This was their price, in effect.”

"Volcker says “the most important single action of the [Reagan] administration in helping the anti-inflation fight” was defeating the air traffic controllers’ (PATCO) strike in 1981, when Reagan fired and permanently replaced ten thousand government workers and arrested their leaders. The show of force had “a psychological effect on the strength of the union bargaining position on other issues—whatever the issues were.” He was right: in 1979, twenty-one million Americans belonged to a union; in 2003, despite substantial growth in the workforce, the number was down to just under sixteen million. After the crushing of PATCO, those unions became less restive ..."

 “The result [of the Volcker regime] was to transfer inflation from the nonfinancial to the financial economy ..."

"Obsession with central bank independence has roots, like most things in America, in the class war. To raise interest rates in response to low unemployment rates, even when inflation is low, is to make sure that the ratio of surplus going to workers does not change. That the vigilant central bank, whatever else it may be, is an instrument of class rule should not surprise anyone ..."

" The best way to discover what was possible in the 1970s would be to test the limits of what is possible today. "

Read the whole thing:


Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: February 24, 2019, 08:59:11 PM »
Canada Energy Regulator Gives Nod to Pacific Pipeline

Canada's energy regulator renewed its support on Friday for a controversial oil pipeline to the Pacific, saying the risks to endangered whales from increased tanker traffic were "justified."

The National Energy Board (NEB) said the project would have "significant adverse environmental effects" on the whales and an oil spill could have equally horrendous impacts on the marine environment.

But it concluded "that they can be justified in the circumstances, in light of the considerable benefits of the project and measures to mitigate the effects."

The federal government has 90 days to decide whether to give final approval for the project, but has signaled it may delay until after a general election in October.

The expansion of the 715-mile (1,150-kilometer) pipeline was to move 890,000 barrels of oil a day from landlocked Alberta province to the Pacific coast, replacing a smaller crumbling conduit built in 1953.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 16, 2019, 10:46:33 PM »
<instead of just snipping, I've copied your comment to here; N.>

It turns out that this dynamic is now being seen as a strong potential tipping point for the global climate system.

This is a very valuable lecture.  wanted to capture it for you here: 


It just confirms all I worried about since the catastrophic events over Boscastle in the UK in the noughties.

From West Yorkshire I was watching those cloud tops all the way down in the SW of England!

That was some mighty cloud and punched well through the tropopause and into the strat.

Water vapour intrusion is occurring the top of every 'Big' storm over the N.Hemisphere beyond the sub polar Jet!

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: December 30, 2018, 04:14:54 PM »
This is not attractive.

Policy and solutions / Re: Aviation
« on: December 11, 2018, 06:38:27 AM »
New report from Chalmers on Swedish air travel.
In Swedish but with an English summary:
Greenhouse gas emissions from air-travel is substantial for high-income countries like Sweden. The established accounting methodology for aviation, which is reported to the UNFCCC, is based on how much the aircrafts are fueling in each country (so called bunkering). We have developed a complementary indicator that includes emissions from the whole air-trip to the final destinations as well as the non-CO2 effects (Larsson et al., 2018). In this report we have refined the method based on data from the Swedish airport operator, Swedavia, and analyzed the development between 1990 and 2017.

The number of trips per person has increased dramatically. Domestic air travel has not increased but international trips have doubled from 0.5 trips per person and year in 1990 to 1.0 trips per person in 2017, a yearly increase by 2.9%.

The average distance to the final destination has not increased much during the period since the number of both short and long trips have increased. The average distance is about 2700 km for a one-way trip which is similar to the distance between Stockholm and Madrid.

Emissions per person-km has decreased by 1.9% per year average. In 2017 the were 90 grams CO2 per person-km, and if the non-CO2-effects are included the emissions are estimated to 170 grams CO2-eq. As a comparison the emissions from long-distance travel by car is about 50 grams per person-km, based on the average number of persons in each car on long-distance trips (3 persons).

The total emissions from the air-travel of Swedish citizens was 10 million ton CO2-eq. in 2017, an increase by 47% since 1990. Emissions from domestic aviation is decreasing and now accounts for only 7% of the emissions. The emissions from international trips have increased and now accounts for 93% of the emissions. The emissions increase took place during the 90s. After year 2000 the emissions have been on the same level due to that the emission decrease per person-km have been on par with the increase in person-km.

The greenhouse gas emissions from Swedish inhabitants’ air travel is now about equivalent to the Swedish emissions from car use. The annual emissions from air travel are now about 1.1-ton CO2-eqv. per Swedish inhabitant which is about five times higher than the global average.

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: November 13, 2018, 05:37:42 PM »
New Year, Same Story: Cost of Wind and Solar Fall Below Cost of Coal and Gas

It's that time of the year again: time for asset management company Lazard to release its annual Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) study. (We know, you've been waiting all year.) The numbers in the report offer economic insight into how energy choices were made in the previous year and how the energy landscape will likely change in the coming year.

The bottom line? The cost of coal-fired electricity per megawatt-hour hasn't budged a bit from 2017, while wind and solar costs per MWh are still falling. That spells bad news for an American coal revival, especially in places where the cost of building brand-new renewable installations is cheaper than the cost of operating existing coal and gas plants—a situation that Lazard says is happening with increasing frequency (PDF).

Although this is Lazard's 12th year quantifying the cost of energy, it's only the fourth year that it has released a separate report quantifying the cost of storage (PDF). Energy storage includes grid-scale lithium-ion batteries as well as vanadium and zinc flow batteries, lead-acid batteries, and advanced lead batteries.

Lazard breaks these down further by market: batteries selling storage wholesale have different revenue streams than batteries connected to utility-grade solar or commercial standalone batteries that are not controlled by a utility.

Here, Lazard says that lithium-ion batteries showed significant cost declines in the relevant markets throughout 2018. Meanwhile, "cost declines for flow batteries are less significant but still observable," Lazard writes. The asset management company unfortunately doesn't expect that to last: "Future declines in the cost of lithium-ion technologies are expected to be mitigated by rising cobalt and lithium carbonate prices as well as delayed battery availability due to high levels of factory utilization."

Lazard also found that shorter-duration batteries, which can discharge over about four hours, are the most cost-effective of any batteries. These batteries "improve the grid’s ability to respond to momentary or short duration fluctuations in electricity supply and demand." This has been confirmed by reports from real-world battery use in Australia, where the massive Tesla battery at the Hornsdale Wind Farm has been used to maintain grid frequency, rather than replacing more traditional forms of electricity generation.

The IEA's World Energy Outlook 2018


IEA's World Energy Outlook 2018 Presentation:

The International Energy Agency's newly released World Energy Outlook finds that oil demand for passenger vehicles is slated to peak in the mid-2020s due to more efficiency, biofuels, and electric vehicles. That's according to their "new policies" scenario, which models not only existing policies but also countries' announced plans and emissions targets.

But, but, but: That projected mid-2020s peak doesn't mean that overall global demand for crude oil is reaching an inflection point anytime soon. That's because other uses — petrochemicals, heavy freight, shipping and planes — remain robust.

Add it all up and the report sees global crude oil demand rising slightly to reach 106 million barrels per day in 2040 (it's roughly 100 mbd right now).

Why it matters: The findings underscore that despite heavy and justified attention to electric cars, passenger transport is just one part of the wider equation when it comes to oil.

Yes, but: The annual report also models a "sustainable development" scenario — a wholly upended global energy system where policy and investment trends are bent to be consistent with the goals of the Paris climate agreement. On the oil side, that means overall demand peaks in almost all nations by 2030. Per an IEA summary...
- "By 2040, cars that rely solely on gasoline and diesel are 40% more efficient than today; there are 930 million electric cars on the road (50% of the global car fleet); a quarter of buses are electric; and nearly 20% of fuels used by trucks are low or zero carbon."

- "There are also major changes in most other sectors and as a result, total oil demand in 2040 in this scenario is 25 mb/d lower than today."

What's next: Despite the forces trimming growth, the world still needs lots of oil and several sources are at risk, including Iran, which is seeing exports fall thanks to looming reimposition of U.S. sanctions. Per IEA...

- Global oil demand is on the cusp of the "historically significant" 100 mbd mark.
- While the market has enough supplies "for now," Iran's exports are slated to fall even more, Venezuela is deteriorating, and there's the "ever-present" threat of more Libyan disruption.
- "[W]e cannot be complacent and the market is clearly signalling its concerns that more supply might be needed."

In its report, the IEA said its main projection scenario through to 2040 foresees the U.S. accounting for nearly 75% and 40% of global oil and gas growth, respectively, over the next six years. Growth is expected to be driven primarily by shale fracking, which should lead U.S. shale oil supply to more than double, reaching 9.2 million barrels a day by the mid-2020s, the agency said.

If these approvals do not pick up sharply from today’s levels, US tight oil production would need to triple from today’s level to over 15 mb/d by 2025 to satisfy demand in the NPS. With a sufficiently large resource base, this could be possible. But it would require levels of capital investment that would far surpass the previous peaks in 2014.

Oil markets are entering a period of renewed uncertainty & volatility
- Natural gas is on the rise: China’s rapid demand growth is erasing talk of a ‘gas glut’
- Solar PV has the momentum while other key technologies & efficiency policies need a push
- Our assessment points to energy-related CO2 emissions reaching a historic high in 2018
Oil demand looks robust in the near term; if approvals of new conventional projects remain low, market stability would require continuous exceptional growth in US shale
“More than at any other point in recent history, fundamental changes to the development model of resource-rich countries look unavoidable,” said Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA’s executive director. “Following through with the announced reform initiatives is essential, as failure to take adequate action would compound future risks for producer economies as well as for global markets.”
New sources of supply will be needed whether or not demand peaks, the agency said.

"The analysis shows oil consumption growing in coming decades, due to rising petrochemicals, trucking and aviation demand. But meeting this growth in the near term means that approvals of conventional oil projects need to double from their current low levels," IEA director Fatih Birol said.

"Without such a pick-up in investment, US shale production, which has already been expanding at record pace, would have to add more than 10 million bpd from today to 2025, the equivalent of adding another Russia to global supply in seven years“ which would be an historically unprecedented feat."

Projected Renewables Surge Won't Prevent Runaway Global Warming

Projected growth of renewable power, electric vehicles and other low-carbon sources won't prevent levels of global warming that soar past the targets of the Paris climate agreement, the International Energy Agency said Monday.

Clean Energy Is Surging, but Not Fast Enough to Solve Global Warming

Over the next two decades, the world’s energy system will undergo a huge transformation. Wind and solar power are poised to become dominant sources of electricity. China’s once-relentless appetite for coal is set to wane. The amount of oil we use to fuel our cars could peak and decline.

But there’s a catch: The global march toward clean energy still isn’t happening fast enough to avoid dangerous global warming, at least not unless governments put forceful new policy measures in place to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

That’s the conclusion of the International Energy Agency, which on Monday published its annual World Energy Outlook, a 661-page report that forecasts global energy trends to 2040. These projections are especially difficult right now because the world’s energy markets, which usually evolve gradually, are going through a major upheaval. ...

The report projects that emissions will keep rising slowly (steadily) until 2040.

Policy and solutions / Re: Aviation
« on: November 01, 2018, 02:19:21 AM »
When the global community (or perhaps the larger powers) get real about cutting emissions, one of the "low hanging fruits" will be aviation. How can one argue that my vacation in Thailand (from Canada) or the arrival of fresh tulips and other things overnight from distant places is not a luxury we could do without to save our societies?

With aviation "accounting for approximately 3.5% of emissions from developed countries", and with the additional nitrogen oxides emissions and contrails "estimated to be about two to four times greater than those of CO2 alone" it will be a low-hanging juicy target that is growing at 9% per year.

The options are batteries (for take-off), biofuels and perhaps hydrogen. All of these add to weight and/or cost, are nowhere near ready for general usage, and may have highly questionable net-carbon emissions (just like the EU has discovered with much biodiesel). We also have the case of US corn ethanol which has an EROI hovering around 1, simply a subsidy to US corn farmers. Only Brazil is able to produce ethanol (sugar cane based) at anywhere near an acceptable EROI. For hydrogen there is also the emotional (and practical) issue that was encapsulated by the Hindenburg. Hydrogen is extremely flammable, and therefore the general public would need to be brought around to flying in a "hydrogen bomb".

My personal feeling is that we simply end up flying a lot less (especially on long-distance "cheap" vacations), possibly reinvigorating some of those more local resorts, with flying returning to being more of an elite pass-time.
My personal feeling is that we continue flying as usual up until the collapse, unfortunately. The desire to fly and have that vacation in Thailand is very strong and prevalent across many levels of society, with the result of flight demand growing 7-8% annually. I strongly doubt that the masses will give up flying to save the planet. I fervently hope that some technological solution will be found to enable either flying on batteries, or to somehow synthesize aviation fuel using renewable electricity.

Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: October 05, 2018, 03:29:25 AM »
Everyone thinks they are not going to be climate migrants. When the Arctic collapses most people will be climate migrants.

I honestly think that Trump's wall will be used in reverse.  The summer heat in the inner north american continent will be deadly.  The winters will bury people with snow. At least for a few years after a BOE the tropics will be safer, or maybe the mid southern hemisphere.

Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: October 04, 2018, 06:22:44 PM »
One little thing though, while I do not live in, or understand Germany fully, I don't think it's that easy either.

Let me explain.  Germany, over more than a decade, put €500bn into renewables.  They shut down their Nuclear reactors, under pressure from the Greens and started having to burn Coal to cope.

Had Germany spent €250bn on Hinckley Point C type reactors, they would have introduced around 35GW of always on baseload power, which could then be augmented by wind and solar, from additional initiatives once the baseload was assured.  35GW nuclear nameplate power delivers half of the average GW used by Germany on any day.

If they had then invested the other €250bn in investments that only return 1% over inflation, they would, after 40 years, have a fund of €350bn (equivalent at today’s value), to work on either extension to 80 years or decommissioning activities for the expired reactors.

Instead what do we have?  The ideologically pure, failed, renewables that see Germany “clean” of Nuclear but dumping their “dirty” CO2 on the rest of the world.  Germany generates some 40% of its power via Coal.

This is the kind of environmental thinking which is damaging to the fight to reduce climate change.  The fight against climate change has absolutely Nothing to do with Green and Everything to do with CO2 Neutral existence.

The Faustian bargain forced by the German Greens has ensured that we are one step closer to losing that fight.

Yet all I hear is how wonderful the German government has been in driving “green” initiatives.  I guess it is true in some ways, extra CO2 will drive more verdant flora in the temperate zones…..

Contrast the UK.  WHinckley Point C goes online in 2025/26, depending on construction issues and when it goes live, all coal power stations in the UK will finally be shut down.  When that happens, the UK will be beyond the commitments made for Paris as it is already mooted that the UK is already there or thereabouts.

The plans for the UK to replace the entire remaining reactors with new HP-C type stations are still under way.  Three more should about do it.

Unless the greens get their way!!

Carbon Neutral is the way.  Green is a nice to have.  After all, if we fail to control CO2, we will kill more species off than any amount of safe nuclear reactors.  Including a significant portion of the human race.

Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: October 01, 2018, 10:10:51 PM »
Germany joins China & Australia in "The Great Coal Comeback"

German energy secretary backs forest clearance to build coal mine
Thomas Bareiß says use of polluting fuel at RWE plant is needed to keep the lights on

Controversial plans to chop down a German forest to build a vast coal mine should proceed because Germany needs the polluting fuel to keep the lights on, according to the chief of the country’s state secretary for energy.

Dozens of treehouses built and occupied by campaigners for years have been recently cleared by police to make way for plans by energy firm RWE, which owns Hambach forest near Cologne, to expand its nearby opencast coal mine.

Environmental groups have rallied against the project, which they argue would lock the country into higher carbon emissions, just as a government-appointed commission simultaneously debates a timeline for Germany to phase out coal.

“It should go ahead,” said Thomas Bareiß when asked by the Guardian if the Hambach clearance should proceed when the “coal exit commission” is still deliberating.

Bareiß said RWE had “a right to do this”, noted that the regional government had already agreed the clearance and said Germany needed the mine to maintain its energy supplies in the short term. “We still need lignite [brown coal] for our reliable coal supply.”

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: September 09, 2018, 11:15:21 PM »
First look inside the Electric Mercedes! - Should Tesla Be Worried?

Many details and views of the interior and batteries. Nice car for sure.

Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: September 07, 2018, 12:14:25 AM »
"EIA has great data this morning:
1) 2017 carbon emissions down 0.9%;
2) 2017 emissions 14% below 2005 levels;
3) Total carbon emissions from gas higher than coal;
4) Petroleum top emitter, responsible for 46% of total emissions.”

Are methane leaks properly estimated and counted ?
"Methane emissions of this magnitude, per unit of natural gas consumed, produce radiative forcing over a 20-year time horizon comparable to the CO2 from natural gas combustion" So not really much progress in the power sector.

Are "imported" emissions counted?
"One-quarter of all global greenhouse gas emissions are caused by the manufacture of products destined for export – and are not accounted for in most nations’ climate policies."

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: August 19, 2018, 12:56:36 AM »
To reinforce your point about methane emissions from thermokarst lakes, the first image from Deimling et al (2015), shows high such methane emission by 2050 when following a BAU pathway:

Schneider von Deimling, T., Grosse, G., Strauss, J., Schirrmeister, L., Morgenstern, A., Schaphoff, S., Meinshausen, M., and Boike, J.: Observation-based modelling of permafrost carbon fluxes with accounting for deep carbon deposits and thermokarst activity, Biogeosciences, 12, 3469-3488, doi:10.5194/bg-12-3469-2015, 2015.

To reinforce your point about the impact of diminishing OH radicals in the atmosphere, Isaksen et al. (2011) indicates that the GWP 100 of CH4 could increase from its present value of about 35 (see the second image) to over a value of 50 sometime after 2050.

Isaksen, I. S. A., Gauss M., Myhre, G., Walter Anthony, K. M.  and Ruppel, C.,  (2011), "Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming from Arctic methane emissions", Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 25, GB2002, doi:10.1029/2010GB003845.

The last image reminds us all that due to cascading tipping points ECS could well increase from its current mean values of circa 3.5C to over 6C by the end of this century.


Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: August 17, 2018, 06:29:43 PM »
I keep trying to find enough time to put together a more "robust" entry regarding oil, fracking, and intermediate term future of fracking and the oil patch .... and other things keep pushing it to the back of the line.  So here is a SHORT VERSION of what I view as IMPORTANT in looking at the oil markets, ESPECIALLLY THE SUPPLY SIDE, over the next couple of years:

1)  The break even point for frackers on the price of oil ..... IS NOT $65.  It is much lower than that.

This is probably the most important point when you are looking at oil.  If you're using $65 as a benchmark BE point .... you're likely dealing with old information.  Technology AND execution is becoming much better (unfortunately .... because fracking is BAD) .... but I deal with reality, not what I want reality to be.

Today, as production levels reach all-time highs, the breakeven point for tight oil projects are a fraction of what they were in 2014. According to  Rystad Energy , the median breakeven point for shale oil in the top fifty most commercial acreages ranges between $23/bbl and $49/bbl. In addition to new efficiencies and better experienced frac crews, breakeven costs were lowered by finding more mature shale deposits. By concentrating on these, many costs such as expenditures for exploration, land acquisition, pad construction, and transportation infrastructure have become no longer needed.
Additionally, more operators now choose to drill wells without fracturing them, leaving oil and gas unreleased until commodity prices are favorable. The EIA estimates that the breakeven price for these drilled but uncompleted wells is on average 39 percent below the breakeven price for a new well. Some six thousand wells are currently drilled but uncompleted, versus 4,500 in 2015, with most of them in the Permian.

2)  Not only is the break even point much lower than $65, THAT is for NEW WELLS.  You also have to consider the "shut in price" of oil for wells that are already drilled.

The "shut in price" is the price you stop producing oil from a well, and "shut it in" until prices recover.

3)  Right now .... the US provides more than 95% of the "fracked oil".  That will likely change in coming years, as Russia, China, and others improve their technology and execution.  That will effect the supply side and put pressure on oil pricing over the coming few years.

4)  Right now..... the main bottleneck in the Permian Basin is pipeline availability.  That will be maxing out SOON.... and they have new pipelines coming on line in 2019.  The pipeline companies AND the oil rig operators are trying to PULL THOSE dates in and speed up the completion dates.  Right now .... they fall heavily in the "back half" of 2019 .... and they are working to pull those dates CLOSER.

There are other things of course that will effect the price of oil in the SHORT TERM .... like sanctions on Iran.  But we don't know yet what China will do regarding sanctions, and whether or not China may choose to purchase MORE Iranian oil as they put a tariff on US oil imports.

As well ..... any softening of world economies will effect the DEMAND side.

For the next few years ..... my eyes are focused on the SUPPLY SIDE.  It will be a few years out (I say 2021 - 2022) until renewables issues will be large enough to impact oil prices.

Obviously renewables are effecting pricing in a VERY SMALL way right now.  But as that "very small" grows into just "small" ..... and that happens as more oil comes to market (especially from frackers that DON'T have nearly as long a lead time) ...... I expect oil to come under SIGNIFICANT pricing pressure over the next 2 - 3 years.

As always ...... GREED eventually will kill them.  The next few years will be interesting to watch in the oil patch.  And just as oil companies move MORE AND MORE assets to NATURALL GAS because they see the end of the tunnel for oil in the transportation area ...... natural gas' "long tunnel" will become shorter and shorter as well (still more than a decade or two out .... but MUCH shorter than I thought only a couple years ago).



Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 17, 2018, 05:31:18 PM »

Don't give me this decorum bullshit. I've posted in this thread witness testimonials (included his own ex-wife), lawsuits, investigative pieces, and elon's own words.. And they all paint this picture:
He and his management are elitist, classist, sexist, racist, anti-union, anti-public transport, anti-safety, anti-worker, and now out-right fraudulent. Elon got his fortune from south african apartheid gem mining. He's an egotistical techno-fetishist hyper-capitalist. He is the enemy of our society.

Without fail, every time, I'm bombarded with posters calling any criticism as lies, or find a way to justify his bullshit.  Weird nobody was talking about decorum and snark when everyone was dog piling on anything that spoke poorly about the lord and savior.

I'm so sick of this forum's members hiding behind "decorum" when their bullshit gets exposed. "please play nice". Sorry, I don't want to play nice with people that are doing everything to justify their excessive lifestyles. If you think rich capitalists selling rich assholes fancy cars is the way to solve climate change, you can go fuck yourself. YOU are the problem

"the only way to solve climate change is if we can maintain the status quo while doing so. Then the only solution is technology"

No, that is bullshit, and this forum needs to be completely purged of the narrative. Because it is going to destroy that world.  The only way to stop climate change is to stop polluting. stop consuming. stop exploiting.

Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: August 16, 2018, 06:05:35 PM »
Airline carbon emissions are the poster child of why modern society remains on a BAU pathway.  The global socio-economic system primarily responds to price pressures, but politicians/regulators do their best to keep prices low in order to stimulate the economy:

Title: "Why our carbon emission policies don't work on air travel"

Extract: "The cost of air travel has fallen dramatically over the last 25 years."

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 12, 2018, 12:38:46 AM »
It's certainly starting to feel like you're gonna be negative to Tesla regardless of evidence, rather than an objective discussions of pro and cons and possible reality vs. fraud and fantasy. You start off by saying Li-ion can't work for trucks period, then you ignore the newer analysis by an objective source showing much smaller battery sizes close to the estimates in "pro-Tesla" sources, then you ignore the actual published range of the Tesla semi and quote longer ranges which Tesla is not building so you can claim the impossibility of it all. I may have gotten the wrong impression initially, but this discussion is getting nowhere so I'll stop hogging this thread.

I used to love Tesla. I convinced my parents to plop down the cash (I was in the army and didn't plan on needing a car) for a model S reservation back when that first was a thing. I was giddy about the whole thing. And the test drive was something I'll always remember. It was spectacular.  However, as the years have gone on, I have become increasingly skeptical. And recently Musk has become exponentially erratic.  He makes claims totally detached from reality. He is such a big deal with such a huge platform and cult of personality that these insane statement can do significant damage. The one that really pissed me off recently was "living on mars is easy." It is not just absurdly wrong, but super dangerous. The idea that we could quite easily terra-form another planet gives many people a sense that there a decent chance we will have a way out if we destroy the habitability of EARTH. The antithesis of "the mission."

I always found the fanboydom surrounding Musk UNbeneficial but I had never bothered to comment public about Tesla. Then Musk tweeted, "Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding Secured." Soon after it became clear that he was just shooting from the hip. I realized how dangerous of a person he is. I realized that he never changed from the guy who wanted to be in an exclusive club of exotic car owners. I realized "the mission" was really just about getting himself on the cover of Rolling Stone, which he had said would be "cool". Yet people who want the outcomes that I want, the people who should be my allies in fighting for a different world, are too caught up with Mission Musk.

I hope I'm wrong and in 5 years I can get a sexy, green, affordable car. But when things sound too good to be true, they usually are.  When I was in my early 20s, I was naive and wanted a magic solution where I didn't have to change my expectations for a plush yet ethical lifestyle. I've grown up...some people never do.  I'll quit this thread.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 12, 2018, 12:20:30 AM »
I have been critical of some of @Elon's alleged humour in the past, but I'm forced to admit that this one made me chuckle:

Short shorts coming soon to Tesla merch

The short shorts are the required attire for employees while they use their flamethrowers to incinerate piles of cash.

Is no one starting to get an unsettling feeling about the state of Tesla? Why would Musk open himself up to civil and criminal charges with the "LBO tweet" if Tesla is in the middle of what will prove to be a profitable quarter?

We now know that the board is beginning talks with banks and legal counsel in regards on their (Musk forced) hope to find a "wide investor pool". Therefore, when Musk tweeted that "Funding secured" he was lying. If desperate times call for desperate measures, and we witness desperate measure, it's a good bet that the times are desperate. All the other red flags are there too: short obsession, attacks on negative journalists, rapid executive turnover, SEC investigations, accusations of employee sabotage. 

I'm not saying it is 100% for sure an imploding fraud. But the amount of certainty that it is 100% not an imploding fraud is stunning. For y'all own mental health, begin to consider the possibility. It will make the outcome less devastating should the chips fall unpleasantly.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 11, 2018, 11:53:13 PM »
GSY, here is some more data. The 300-mile Semi battery should weigh around 6,500-7,000 pounds. Minus the weight of fuel it's an extra weight of 5,000+ pounds, before savings on engine weight and other components which could bring it close to a normal truck weight. Sorry to say but your 20,000 lbs figure is pure fantasy.

Like I stated some time ago: Lithium ion for short hauls probably makes sense. Trying to stretch that distance out becomes unreasonable. For similar range to diesel trucks, 10,000-20,000 lbs is absolutely the extra weight. 

To be totally honest, lithium ion for freight likely doesn't even make sense for even medium hauls. Even if the weight gets low enough, the battery replacement rate makes the whole thing uneconomical.

And as far as tesla is concerned in the medium hauls realm, they are at least a year behind their competition. The funding source(s) which apparently only Musk is privy to better have a large appetite for debt and cash burn.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 11, 2018, 05:55:00 PM »
He confirmed that Tesla intends to have the same cargo capacity as diesel trucks – meaning that it should weigh about the same as a diesel truck.

Hi Oren.

People forget, or neglect, that Elon is a trained physicist. He gave us 2 of the 3 variables to solve the F = M A equation during the reveal, and left the solution as an exercise for the class.

He gave acceleration from 0-60 mph at two different masses, 5 sec empty and 20 sec at 80,000 lbs gross weight. And we can assume F or motor force is the same under both tests.

From these two data points, it's trivial to show that the empty weight of the Semi is no more than 5s/20s = 0.25 of the max gross weight, or 20,000 lbs

And this places a limit on the max weight of the semi, since this calculation assumes zero extra rolling resistance from the trailer.  So the semi weighs less than 20,000 lbs. And if we had data for the drag of the trailer, we could estimate the Semi's weight even more accurately 8)

BTW, a standard Class 8 Semi weighs about 19,000 lbs.

There is one part of the equation that you are forgetting.  The energy density of diesel is AT LEAST 10x the energy density of lithion ion batteries.   Diesel semis usually carry at least 200 gallons of fuel weighing a little over 7 lbs per gallon.  So 1400 lbs of fuel in the diesel would require 14,000 lbs of lithion ion battery or over 12,000 lbs more than the diesels fuel weight. Lets say the diesel engine weighs an extra 3000 lbs. Every estimate I make gives serious deference to the Tesla semi, and yet there is still 9000 extra lbs to make up for....somehow. In reality it's probably more than 20,000 lbs.

Or we can just assume that Musk is a wise hero, whose lack of detailed explanation of his breakthroughs are actually just clever math riddles for us non-geniuses to figure out.  And obviously we should ignore that while announcing these impossible specs he also gave an impossible timeline.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 09, 2018, 06:52:17 PM »
”We have attained the rated range. But only by crawling along, denied heating, A/C, stereo, HUD, lane-assist, wipers, headlights. Real-driving range is below 200 miles, I reckon.”

Top Gear’s big Jaguar I-Pace test part 5: how far can it actually go?

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 09, 2018, 05:38:17 PM »

I am unsure why you insist on using such a condescending tone when holding this discussion, and why you keep assuming that the people participating are Musk/Tesla worshipers, rather than just people with opinions different from yours.

Maybe it's unbeneficial. However, I believe it's warranted to try to wake people from the trance. I don't have any special information. I don't know for sure about any of this. But ALL of the signs are there that this could be fraud on a massive scale. The company is the face of the "green tech" revolution, and it will be terrible for whole movement if it all goes sour.

I do not perceive a healthy sense of skepticism. The reason Enron, Theranos, and Madoff were able to run multi-billion dollar catastrophes is that people didn't have enough skepticism. It isn't a bad thing to take a hard and critical look at things. It's healthy. It doesn't actually help Tesla or "the mission" to ignore the red flags.  I go over the top in the other direction to try to balance it out.

Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: August 06, 2018, 06:35:14 PM »
“Living in South Florida in the summer and not having the beach as option is not a great place to be.”

Red tides in the Gulf of Mexico and toxic blue-green algae in inland waters are killing animals and stoking outrage in South Florida.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 03, 2018, 03:09:45 PM »
I have no problem with anyone who views Musk as a hero. He certainly has engaged in an heroic effort to bring mass production of EV's to market. The thing is, we could have a thousand heroes just like Musk, championing solutions and it will not solve our climate change problem.

Our problem is systemic, a product of the growth model, Capitalism, that is driving us to the brink. If we insist on heroes to solve climate change, than we need about 3 to 4 billion of them, citizens of nations who consume most of the planets resources. Each of these heroes must accept a simple truth. Our profligate lifestyles will kill us all.

It is not an accident that the Tesla models being produced are the luxury models. This is not an accident but a persistent feature of the growth system and EV's are merely a Green BAU solution to a problem that cannot be solved by Green BAU.

Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: July 26, 2018, 08:31:57 PM »
Florida:  Your flood insurance premium is going up again, and that’s only the beginning
FEMA confirmed to the Miami Herald that it is looking into switching to risk-based pricing in 2020, which would end the subsidies most coastal communities enjoy on their flood insurance premiums and show the true dollar cost of living in areas repeatedly pounded by hurricanes and drenched with floods — like South Florida.

“That means insurance is about to become very expensive, and it kind of sounds the bell that these are high-risk areas,” said Wayne Pathman, a Miami-based land use attorney and chair of the city’s Sea Level Rise Committee.

Pages: [1]