Norway can afford to do that because it is a very rich country. It became rich mainly by extractive industries - timber, iron ore, fishing and of course oil and natural gas. And until recently, it had a small population and limited immigration. It values hard work and community solutions. But for the bulk of it's existence it was not a multi cultural society. We will see how things work out with more immigration.

"sure everyone born in the western world is part of the problem " - and everyone who migrates to the western world adopts that same lifestyle.

US's population growth is from immigrants not the birth rate of residents. There were 400,000 more births in the US last year than total deaths. The other couple of million of growth was thru immigration (legal and illegal).
"As birth rates in the United States continue to fall, immigrants will constitute a growing source of population increase. The Pew Research Center estimates that by 2065, the U.S. will be home to an additional 103 million people either born abroad or descended from immigrants" Google

The world just added another 74 million babies, probably 72 million are in countries experiencing migration out (eg Afghanistan, DR Congo, Somalia)

Somewhat off topic, The USA's successfully competing with China is likely dependent upon a population growing to about 400 million people by the end of the century. Should the US and China (and others) survive that long Earth's population is likely to stabilize, or slightly decrease over subsequent centuries. Survival is in doubt.

Still the world needs fewer people. I remember the US with 200 million people. We don't need more areas looking like the DFW metroplex or the LA basin.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Still the world needs fewer people. I remember the US with 200 million people. We don't need more areas looking like the DFW metroplex or the LA basin.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... nd=premium

The firewall generally allows one article free. The gist is: We are already facing a reduction in available workers in broad areas of the economy. Dealing with a long term decline in the working population is difficult. It requires a disciplined political and workforce response. It can be done. I do not believe he US has the discipline to face this at this time. That shortage of workers will result in higher wages and some continued inflation.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Still the world needs fewer people. I remember the US with 200 million people. We don't need more areas looking like the DFW metroplex or the LA basin.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... nd=premium

The firewall generally allows one article free. The gist is: We are already facing a reduction in available workers in broad areas of the economy. Dealing with a long term decline in the working population is difficult. It requires a disciplined political and workforce response. It can be done. I do not believe he US has the discipline to face this at this time. That shortage of workers will result in higher wages and some continued inflation.

Overpopulation is the sword of Damocles since the start of the industrial revolution and the continued economic growth you can’t have one without the other, each nation competing for resources and market share for continued economic growth

But what I think we are seeing here now is that for most western nations the cost of living is getting so high it’s starting to impact on the middle class and driving down population growth, the Uber wealthy will always do there thing and will have little impact but at the lower socioeconomic levels will see the impact

Norway sees oil in its future despite warnings https://phys.org/news/2021-06-norway-oil-future.html

Excerpts -
"We will supply energy to the world as long as the demand exists," Petroleum and Energy Minister Tina Bru told a press conference.

While Oslo regularly cites the need for a "green transition", it still relies heavily on oil and gas revenues for its public finances, trade balance (accounting for 42 percent of exports of goods), employment (more than 200,000 jobs are either directly or indirectly linked to the sector) and to keep rural Norway populated.

The black gold is also the reason Norway's 5.4 million inhabitants today have the world's biggest sovereign wealth fund, worth a whopping $1.36 trillion (1.13 trillion euros).

This week, Norway also opened new areas for oil exploration and production of petroleum, despite the IEA warning.

Those wily Vikings - do as I say not as I do. Maybe Norway can sell you more gas from their new fields instead of relying on the Americans or Russians.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Norway sees oil in its future despite warnings https://phys.org/news/2021-06-norway-oil-future.html

Excerpts -
"We will supply energy to the world as long as the demand exists," Petroleum and Energy Minister Tina Bru told a press conference.

While Oslo regularly cites the need for a "green transition", it still relies heavily on oil and gas revenues for its public finances, trade balance (accounting for 42 percent of exports of goods), employment (more than 200,000 jobs are either directly or indirectly linked to the sector) and to keep rural Norway populated.

The black gold is also the reason Norway's 5.4 million inhabitants today have the world's biggest sovereign wealth fund, worth a whopping $1.36 trillion (1.13 trillion euros).

This week, Norway also opened new areas for oil exploration and production of petroleum, despite the IEA warning.

Those wily Vikings - do as I say not as I do. Maybe Norway can sell you more gas from their new fields instead of relying on the Americans or Russians.

As you attest in relation to Norway of supply and demand for its fossil fuels,because Norway is blessed with topography that more deadly lends itself to hydro and thermal to generate more than 90% of its power needs power. A lot of nations are not in the same position to do that and there fore must rely on alternative power generation source

I posted this because it reflects the pragmatic (or sly) approach to energy that Norway has. Their wealth allows them to heavily subsidize things such as electric cars so the nation looks really green. But they still produce alot of oil and gas and will continue to do so They haven't electrified their aircraft yet and they do like to travel. But by far their biggest source of CO2 is the size of their Merchant and Fishing fleets. 4th largest fleet in the world and notorious in being large consumers of marine fuel oil with few emission controls.

Like I said - pretty wily

-Tina Bru is not in government, the right wing coallition she represented was voted out. The actions described in the article was seen as a desperate measure on her way out.
It is however a real debate if we should to keep up oil and gas production, or symbolically lead the way in closing down production, which is also a popular stance.

It is easy to see the arguments of the latter. Someone needs to start, and a rich first world nation with no real energy problems and a green profile is the perfect one to do it.

The arguments against are more technocratic, the demand is controlling the overall world production, so it is better to keep up a comparatively clean and politically uncomplicated north-sea gas supply, than leave it all to russians, the middle east and extremely dirty alternative extraction methods. Then work to reduce demand through regulation and new tech, of course.

-There aren’t any subsidies on electric cars. There are however taxes on fossil cars that doesn’t apply to electric cars.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I posted this because it reflects the pragmatic (or sly) approach to energy that Norway has. Their wealth allows them to heavily subsidize things such as electric cars so the nation looks really green. But they still produce alot of oil and gas and will continue to do so They haven't electrified their aircraft yet and they do like to travel. But by far their biggest source of CO2 is the size of their Merchant and Fishing fleets. 4th largest fleet in the world and notorious in being large consumers of marine fuel oil with few emission controls.

Like I said - pretty wily

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Norway sees oil in its future despite warnings https://phys.org/news/2021-06-norway-oil-future.html

Excerpts -
"We will supply energy to the world as long as the demand exists," Petroleum and Energy Minister Tina Bru told a press conference.

While Oslo regularly cites the need for a "green transition", it still relies heavily on oil and gas revenues for its public finances, trade balance (accounting for 42 percent of exports of goods), employment (more than 200,000 jobs are either directly or indirectly linked to the sector) and to keep rural Norway populated.

The black gold is also the reason Norway's 5.4 million inhabitants today have the world's biggest sovereign wealth fund, worth a whopping $1.36 trillion (1.13 trillion euros).

This week, Norway also opened new areas for oil exploration and production of petroleum, despite the IEA warning.

Those wily Vikings - do as I say not as I do. Maybe Norway can sell you more gas from their new fields instead of relying on the Americans or Russians.

And at the same time, the wealth fund is moving away from fossil fuel investments, too much risk.

Not all fossil fuel companies are ignorant about the future. Rapsol announced that it will become a net-zero emitter by 2050. It also downgraded the value of its oil and gas reserves by $5.3 billion.

M564038 wrote:

The arguments against are more technocratic, the demand is controlling the overall world production, so it is better to keep up a comparatively clean and politically uncomplicated north-sea gas supply, than leave it all to russians, the middle east and extremely dirty alternative extraction methods. Then work to reduce demand through regulation and new tech, of course.

I think the path forward is indeed to become more energy self-sufficient as a continent, or as the EU if you will. A clear path to self-reliance, clean energy can be coupled with gas from Norway, if the alternative is reliance on unreliable suppliers. But foremost is the need to conserve energy, development of a reliable renewable energy system at the EU level.

Hunterston B nuclear power station retires after 46 years in service
Sector calls for greater state backing after UK loses eighth of its nuclear capacity with Scottish plant’s closure
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... in-service

Wouldn't closing this plant in May make more sense?

It's been a month since we've posted on this topic.I guess a few things have changed since then.

BP and Shell are both walking away from multi billion dollar investments in Russian hydrocarbons. Exxon will be next
"Shell Quits Russia Gas Ventures as Political Pressure Mounts
Energy company will exit LNG venture, Nord Stream 2 pipeline
Shell follows BP in leaving Russia due to Ukraine invasion"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... s-l06zscji

Now would be a good time to let OPEC know that Europe and North America are about to unleash their oil potential.

Announce
1) restart Keystone pipeline expansion
2) Open US Federal lands for drilling
3) Get BP and Shell back into the oil business and start reworking North Sea fields.
4) Reopen recently shut down nuclear plants

And maybe a tariff on all imported oil as a kicker. Sell it to the public as a Defense ACT. Use the tariff proceeds to fund alternate energy and conservation projects.

LOl.
There has been absolutely zero, zilch, nada movement/discussion/debate regarding north-sea oil production in regards to this conflict.

There isn’t really anything they could do either.
They are producing at max as always, and it takes 10 years to develop a new field.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Now would be a good time to let OPEC know that Europe and North America are about to unleash their oil potential.

Announce
1) restart Keystone pipeline expansion
2) Open US Federal lands for drilling
3) Get BP and Shell back into the oil business and start reworking North Sea fields.
4) Reopen recently shut down nuclear plants

And maybe a tariff on all imported oil as a kicker. Sell it to the public as a Defense ACT. Use the tariff proceeds to fund alternate energy and conservation projects.

Oil is already taxed a lot in Europe, not for all applications (aviation...) but still. I just paid 1,998€/l for premium gas, that's 8,24$/US gallon. About 51% of that is taxes.

Less than a bottle of water!
Gas is waaaaaay to cheap for what the real cost is.

Aesma wrote:

Oil is already taxed a lot in Europe, not for all applications (aviation...) but still. I just paid 1,998€/l for premium gas, that's 8,24$/US gallon. About 51% of that is taxes.

M564038 wrote:

Less than a bottle of water!
Gas is waaaaaay to cheap for what the real cost is.

Aesma wrote:

Oil is already taxed a lot in Europe, not for all applications (aviation...) but still. I just paid 1,998€/l for premium gas, that's 8,24$/US gallon. About 51% of that is taxes.

What do you think the real cost is?

Aesma wrote:

Oil is already taxed a lot in Europe, not for all applications (aviation...) but still. I just paid 1,998€/l for premium gas, that's 8,24$/US gallon. About 51% of that is taxes.

Gas price in Hong Kong is now about 2.7 USD/L but the tax is just about 0.8 USD?

[quote="M564038"]LOl.
There has been absolutely zero, zilch, nada movement/discussion/debate regarding north-sea oil production in regards to this conflict.

There isn’t really anything they could do either.
They are producing at max as always, and it takes 10 years to develop a new field.

Then they need to get some Texans to show them how. Worked for BP for 20 years. If you spend enough money you can use enhanced measures to push the remaining oil out. Didn't make sense when when oil was $60 per bbl but sure does at $150. And really does when OPEC and Russia control Europe's energy future for the next 5 years at least.

It also sends a msg to the Saudi's - do something about oil prices or availability. Otherwise the resulting economic demand devastation will cause oil demand to plummet

Bringing new oil sources on line is generally a pretty drawn out affair. The time lines can be upwards in years. Does anyone know US sources which can be more of less turned on with that proverbial off/on switch?

New oil sources yes but reworking wells using steam, fracking, CO2 injection, natural gas reinjection instead of flaring, etc are possible. During the first Gulf war, Alaskan oil producers were able to raise output levels quite a bit using these techniques. In addition, stripper wells that have been dormant (we have them all around Ohio) can be brought back into production at higher prices.

Even my BFF Elon Musk agrees with me - "‘We need to increase oil & gas output immediately,’ Elon Musk says as Ukraine crisis jolts U.S. crude to 2008 high.
https://finance.yahoo.com/m/a7ee2372-89 ... -oil-.html

Europeans forcing BP and Shell to severely curtail drilling in the North Sea. That needs to stop. I've argued on this thread for 4 months that trying to reduce consumption by decreasing supply was not the right approach.

c933103 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Oil is already taxed a lot in Europe, not for all applications (aviation...) but still. I just paid 1,998€/l for premium gas, that's 8,24$/US gallon. About 51% of that is taxes.

Gas price in Hong Kong is now about 2.7 USD/L but the tax is just about 0.8 USD?

There are probably other taxes. The oil might be hit with import taxes for example. The price of the crude, transporting, refining etc., is no more that 1 dollar something.

Aesma wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Oil is already taxed a lot in Europe, not for all applications (aviation...) but still. I just paid 1,998€/l for premium gas, that's 8,24$/US gallon. About 51% of that is taxes.

Gas price in Hong Kong is now about 2.7 USD/L but the tax is just about 0.8 USD?

There are probably other taxes. The oil might be hit with import taxes for example. The price of the crude, transporting, refining etc., is no more that 1 dollar something.

The fuel tax is import tax and there are no other sales tax or such. The situation would appear on the news every once in a while, but no one can conclusively say why is this other than accusing the oil companies for pocketing too much.But it doesn't make sense in numbers either. https://www.hk01.com/%E7%A4%BE%E6%9C%83 ... 6%E7%88%AD

So in less than 5 months, this thread has swung from one extreme to the other.
"Jamie Dimon to Joe Biden: We need a 'Marshall Plan' for US and European energy security".
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/23/business ... index.html

Excerpt -
"In a similar vein, Dimon urged Biden on Wednesday to ramp up US natural gas production to strengthen the US and EU's energy security, the person familiar with the matter told CNN.

The source said Dimon believes the federal government should focus on four areas: increasing natural gas production in an environmentally responsible way, building additional liquefied natural gas facilities in Europe, investing in new technology for hydrogen and carbon capture resources and streamlining permitting for renewable alternatives like wind and solar."

MohawkWeekend wrote:

So in less than 5 months, this thread has swung from one extreme to the other.
"Jamie Dimon to Joe Biden: We need a 'Marshall Plan' for US and European energy security".
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/23/business ... index.html

Excerpt -
"In a similar vein, Dimon urged Biden on Wednesday to ramp up US natural gas production to strengthen the US and EU's energy security, the person familiar with the matter told CNN.

The source said Dimon believes the federal government should focus on four areas: increasing natural gas production in an environmentally responsible way, building additional liquefied natural gas facilities in Europe, investing in new technology for hydrogen and carbon capture resources and streamlining permitting for renewable alternatives like wind and solar."

I don't see it as a swing. The last exert highlights the push away from Fossil Fuels. If anything the latest supply chain issues are highlighting the need to run away from Fossil fuels.

The US, Australia and Canada will not allow Chinese EV's to have anything more than a tiny fraction of such a strategic industry. If that weren't so, they would already have a significant percentage of the market. Plus tariffs would be 30% or more (as on Chinese solar panels)

More and more, China is considered a military threat. Supporting Putin and threatening to "bash our heads in". Both parties in the US are turning against globalism and more trade with China.

casinterest wrote:

[

I don't see it as a swing. The last exert highlights the push away from Fossil Fuels. If anything the latest supply chain issues are highlighting the need to run away from Fossil fuels.

You are correct in that the Bank CEO is calling for increased use of alternatives. But he (and apparently Biden) believe now that natural gas is the bridge fuel that others wanted to eliminate too soon.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

casinterest wrote:

[

I don't see it as a swing. The last exert highlights the push away from Fossil Fuels. If anything the latest supply chain issues are highlighting the need to run away from Fossil fuels.

You are correct in that the Bank CEO is calling for increased use of alternatives. But he (and apparently Biden) believe now that natural gas is the bridge fuel that others wanted to eliminate too soon.

What others wanted to eliminate it?

Coal is the one everyone wants to eliminate as it burns inefficiently and is expensive to transport and store

casinterest wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

casinterest wrote:

[

I don't see it as a swing. The last exert highlights the push away from Fossil Fuels. If anything the latest supply chain issues are highlighting the need to run away from Fossil fuels.

You are correct in that the Bank CEO is calling for increased use of alternatives. But he (and apparently Biden) believe now that natural gas is the bridge fuel that others wanted to eliminate too soon.

What others wanted to eliminate it?

Coal is the one everyone wants to eliminate as it burns inefficiently and is expensive to transport and store

Is coal expensive to store? I thought it just sat in piles next to plants until it was burnt.

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

You are correct in that the Bank CEO is calling for increased use of alternatives. But he (and apparently Biden) believe now that natural gas is the bridge fuel that others wanted to eliminate too soon.

What others wanted to eliminate it?

Coal is the one everyone wants to eliminate as it burns inefficiently and is expensive to transport and store

Is coal expensive to store? I thought it just sat in piles next to plants until it was burnt.

You have to get it into piles first. And that involves Train/truck transport, and then you have to have operators moving it, and it is dirty and wastes space.

casinterest wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

casinterest wrote:

[

I don't see it as a swing. The last exert highlights the push away from Fossil Fuels. If anything the latest supply chain issues are highlighting the need to run away from Fossil fuels.

You are correct in that the Bank CEO is calling for increased use of alternatives. But he (and apparently Biden) believe now that natural gas is the bridge fuel that others wanted to eliminate too soon.

What others wanted to eliminate it?

Coal is the one everyone wants to eliminate as it burns inefficiently and is expensive to transport and store

A lot of the enviro's do, especially in Europe. Certainly NY and CAL government officials.

Will be interesting to see if coal plant retirements in the US slow down significantly this year. Natural gas is getting very expensive and will continue to do so as more gas is exported to Europe.

pune wrote:

And mind you, all the auto companies of the U.S. are bankrupt except for Tesla…

Would you mind providing sources citing the court filings to back up that claim?

Paul Krugman's newsletter (subscription only) has a graph from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. The main reason US production is not increasing is markets/banks are demanding capital discipline, 60% Environmental and government regulations, less than 20%. My suspicion is that FF prices are going to be having wild swings, low and high, as it slowly drops to some baseline minimum.

pune wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

The US, Australia and Canada will not allow Chinese EV's to have anything more than a tiny fraction of such a strategic industry. If that weren't so, they would already have a significant percentage of the market. Plus tariffs would be 30% or more (as on Chinese solar panels)

More and more, China is considered a military threat. Supporting Putin and threatening to "bash our heads in". Both parties in the US are turning against globalism and more trade with China.

Canada, dunno but the U.S. and Australia certainly can't do much. Their own auto companies are failing. They wanna pivot to EVs but dunno how. I have shared this number of times. The big three have no idea. They still wanna keep the ICE flames alive and now the customer will say no as the price of fossil fuels goes sky-high. Also, those who do a bit of research will know and see that in markets where EVs have made a significant dent, ICE vehicles' resale value has dropped the face of the earth. Of course, some sheep will always be there, but sooner or later even they will know what is the correct choice. And mind you, all the auto companies of the U.S. are bankrupt except for Tesla as shared by Sandy Munro himself who is a car nerd and had worked at Ford, Toyota and others. He knows what he is talking about more than you -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g63SJwFdGTQ

Just about everything you say in your post is wrong. Not sure where you get your information.

American automakers are thriving. Record profits.
American automakers are pivoting to EV's. Record investments.
ICE vehicle resale values have never been higher in the US. In fact, record highs.

Perhaps the Indian press does not like to cover US success stories.

American car manufacturers invest far from enough in EVs compared to the rest of the world.
As an example: VW are already far ahead of GM on the EV market and a whole generation ahead on already developed models. Yet, they are spending nearly twice that of GM’s american “record investment ” in the period towards 2025 on EV R&D.

It is all dwarfed by the chinese of course.

Say goodbye to the American auto-makers a part from Tesla.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

pune wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

The US, Australia and Canada will not allow Chinese EV's to have anything more than a tiny fraction of such a strategic industry. If that weren't so, they would already have a significant percentage of the market. Plus tariffs would be 30% or more (as on Chinese solar panels)

More and more, China is considered a military threat. Supporting Putin and threatening to "bash our heads in". Both parties in the US are turning against globalism and more trade with China.

Canada, dunno but the U.S. and Australia certainly can't do much. Their own auto companies are failing. They wanna pivot to EVs but dunno how. I have shared this number of times. The big three have no idea. They still wanna keep the ICE flames alive and now the customer will say no as the price of fossil fuels goes sky-high. Also, those who do a bit of research will know and see that in markets where EVs have made a significant dent, ICE vehicles' resale value has dropped the face of the earth. Of course, some sheep will always be there, but sooner or later even they will know what is the correct choice. And mind you, all the auto companies of the U.S. are bankrupt except for Tesla as shared by Sandy Munro himself who is a car nerd and had worked at Ford, Toyota and others. He knows what he is talking about more than you -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g63SJwFdGTQ

Just about everything you say in your post is wrong. Not sure where you get your information.

American automakers are thriving. Record profits.
American automakers are pivoting to EV's. Record investments.
ICE vehicle resale values have never been higher in the US. In fact, record highs.

Perhaps the Indian press does not like to cover US success stories.

pune wrote:

QF7 wrote:

pune wrote:

And mind you, all the auto companies of the U.S. are bankrupt except for Tesla…

Would you mind providing sources citing the court filings to back up that claim?

I actually gave you better than that, did you see the video or see the Altman-z score. Where are they making money, only in China, elsewhere they are in a loss. And those numbers and everything that Sandy pulled out was from whatever is public domain. He also shared a public document which is linked below the video, you can look it up and see for yourself. I don't need to do the R&D for you, you can do yourself.

I don’t need to do any R&D. The simple fact is none of the auto companies of the U.S. are bankrupt.

True, some have filed for bankruptcy protection in the past but they emerged from that some time ago.

Of course you and your YouTube buddy are free to believe what you want to.

pune wrote:

QF7 wrote:

pune wrote:

I actually gave you better than that, did you see the video or see the Altman-z score. Where are they making money, only in China, elsewhere they are in a loss. And those numbers and everything that Sandy pulled out was from whatever is public domain. He also shared a public document which is linked below the video, you can look it up and see for yourself. I don't need to do the R&D for you, you can do yourself.

I don’t need to do any R&D. The simple fact is none of the auto companies of the U.S. are bankrupt.

True, some have filed for bankruptcy protection in the past but they emerged from that some time ago.

Of course, you and your YouTube buddy are free to believe what you want to.

My dear friend, it is not me nor my Youtube buddy that one has to believe or disbelieve in. Sandy Munro is an American, but if you can't believe your own countrymen, not my problem, and especially one who has worked as an engineer and still does engineering, now though on EVs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Munro

https://www.youtube.com/c/MunroLive - And that is his youtube channel.

OMG. I really should just let this go but…

Mr. Munro’s nationality and profession are completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Your assertion (attributed to him) was that U.S. auto companies are bankrupt. THEY ARE NOT!!

With that I am over and out.

pune wrote:

Was reading an excerpt of this today, seems the fossil fuel car manufacturing industry can't pay its workers enough -

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ ... 417596002/

Meanwhile, the Chinese EVs are about to hit the U.S. Australia, and other markets, and any guesses who would win. At roughly around 20k USD or around that per car. Guess who is going to win. Even with import taxes of 10% and above.

Who cares about the working American, right? Cheap Chinese labour for all - hooray!