Kiwirob wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

casinterest wrote:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/ ... Shock.html

A lot is still to be sorted out about Russian Oil.
As I said, it will be a rough spring summer, and that was before the Russian Kamikaze curveball.

We will have to see how long it takes to get production up.

Right now , not giant moves in US production.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafH ... RFPUS2&f=W

Will the Middle East ramp up first?

When you go to the below page, you can see that OPEC can easily handle the needed 3 million a day volume

https://www.eia.gov/opendata/qb.php?category=1039874

If anyone does, I doubt it will be the two big GCC states in OPEC.

Compare the two articles below about the Japanese PM's recent visit to Riyadh, posted about an hour apart:

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2022 ... rkets.html

https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/he ... tate-media

The Kyodo piece has no mention of the OPEC+ agreement for the small monthly increases.

I've been seeing a pattern over the last 1-2 weeks where the following happens:

1) Government of a large foreign consumer nation begs SA and the UAE for more production.
2) Talks end amicably and officials from consumer nation mention commitments to maintain market "stability" and "balance".
3) Saudi or Emirati officials return home and repeat the same buzzwords/phrases from Step 2, but say this will be accomplished by sticking with the current output agreement.

Washington and Boris just fell for this lip service crap a few days ago. It would be funny if it wasn't for the impending economic collapse this will cause.

Keeping with oil KSA looks like it will start to sell oil in Yuan to China, makes sense they are there biggest customer. I doubt the US could get away with doing to KSA what they did to Libya when they started to trade oil in difference currencies.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... Sales.html

As an American taxpayer I couldn't care less what currency they use; I'd rather withdraw military support from "The Kingdom" and the UAE and have it go to renewable infrastructure.

It won't happen even with their continued support of the Kremlin. One can wish though...

Costco in YXU is showing 1.579 CAD/l today. I filled up the rental for 1.64 CAD/l in Guelph, ON yesterday. So the situation is improving.
However...I'm commuting this week from London to Guelph to help out with some technical acceptance testing. 80 minutes one way. The price of the gas isn't hurting, as I don't pay for it, but the commute itself hurts. There are thousands who drive daily from every direction to the GTA. It takes them very often longer to drive a shorter distance than my 120km due to very heavy traffic. And they do that day after day, year after year. This is what hurts, the high gas prices are just adding insult to the injury. After all, we can always make some more money. Our time is gone forever.

SEAorPWM wrote:

casinterest wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Crude oil was up almost $9 today. Yikes.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/ ... Shock.html

A lot is still to be sorted out about Russian Oil.
As I said, it will be a rough spring summer, and that was before the Russian Kamikaze curveball.

We will have to see how long it takes to get production up.

Right now , not giant moves in US production.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafH ... RFPUS2&f=W

Will the Middle East ramp up first?

When you go to the below page, you can see that OPEC can easily handle the needed 3 million a day volume

https://www.eia.gov/opendata/qb.php?category=1039874

If anyone does, I doubt it will be the two big GCC states in OPEC.

Compare the two articles below about the Japanese PM's recent visit to Riyadh, posted about an hour apart:

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2022 ... rkets.html

https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/he ... tate-media

The Kyodo piece has no mention of the OPEC+ agreement for the small monthly increases.

I've been seeing a pattern over the last 1-2 weeks where the following happens:

1) Government of a large foreign consumer nation begs SA and the UAE for more production.
2) Talks end amicably and officials from consumer nation mention commitments to maintain market "stability" and "balance".
3) Saudi or Emirati officials return home and repeat the same buzzwords/phrases from Step 2, but say this will be accomplished by sticking with the current output agreement.

Washington and Boris just fell for this lip service crap a few days ago. It would be funny if it wasn't for the impending economic collapse this will cause.

The asking for more production is a political show. It is in the interests of OPEC to produce more oil to help their cause against Electric Car production. Production will rise as prices rise.

Kiwirob wrote:

Keeping with oil KSA looks like it will start to sell oil in Yuan to China, makes sense they are there biggest customer. I doubt the US could get away with doing to KSA what they did to Libya when they started to trade oil in difference currencies.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... Sales.html

That's a cool story, but China is still pegged to the dollar. It wouldn't amount to much other than a difference in currency movement for China.

It is intriguing though, as it would finally solve one of American blue collar workers biggest gripes if China Unpegged from the dollar.

casinterest wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

casinterest wrote:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/ ... Shock.html

A lot is still to be sorted out about Russian Oil.
As I said, it will be a rough spring summer, and that was before the Russian Kamikaze curveball.

We will have to see how long it takes to get production up.

Right now , not giant moves in US production.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafH ... RFPUS2&f=W

Will the Middle East ramp up first?

When you go to the below page, you can see that OPEC can easily handle the needed 3 million a day volume

https://www.eia.gov/opendata/qb.php?category=1039874

If anyone does, I doubt it will be the two big GCC states in OPEC.

Compare the two articles below about the Japanese PM's recent visit to Riyadh, posted about an hour apart:

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2022 ... rkets.html

https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/he ... tate-media

The Kyodo piece has no mention of the OPEC+ agreement for the small monthly increases.

I've been seeing a pattern over the last 1-2 weeks where the following happens:

1) Government of a large foreign consumer nation begs SA and the UAE for more production.
2) Talks end amicably and officials from consumer nation mention commitments to maintain market "stability" and "balance".
3) Saudi or Emirati officials return home and repeat the same buzzwords/phrases from Step 2, but say this will be accomplished by sticking with the current output agreement.

Washington and Boris just fell for this lip service crap a few days ago. It would be funny if it wasn't for the impending economic collapse this will cause.

The asking for more production is a political show. It is in the interests of OPEC to produce more oil to help their cause against Electric Car production. Production will rise as prices rise.

Kiwirob wrote:

Keeping with oil KSA looks like it will start to sell oil in Yuan to China, makes sense they are there biggest customer. I doubt the US could get away with doing to KSA what they did to Libya when they started to trade oil in difference currencies.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... Sales.html

That's a cool story, but China is still pegged to the dollar. It wouldn't amount to much other than a difference in currency movement for China.

It is intriguing though, as it would finally solve one of American blue collar workers biggest gripes if China Unpegged from the dollar.

OPEC sees all of these "customers" wanting more oil yet the same customers have passed legislations that will put OPEC out of business in a decade. Hmm, I wonder why the OPEC nations are being obstinate,

Classa64 wrote:

How are prices in your area?
Are you thinking of switching to a more efficient car because of it?

Last I checked, it was $4.919 a gallon for super unleaded, which resulted in me spending $94.00 for refueling. As for switching to a more fuel efficient car, not really an option for me given that there isn't one out there that is going to simultaneously accomplish the things that I need to be able to do with it.

william wrote:

casinterest wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

If anyone does, I doubt it will be the two big GCC states in OPEC.

Compare the two articles below about the Japanese PM's recent visit to Riyadh, posted about an hour apart:

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2022 ... rkets.html

https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/he ... tate-media

The Kyodo piece has no mention of the OPEC+ agreement for the small monthly increases.

I've been seeing a pattern over the last 1-2 weeks where the following happens:

1) Government of a large foreign consumer nation begs SA and the UAE for more production.
2) Talks end amicably and officials from consumer nation mention commitments to maintain market "stability" and "balance".
3) Saudi or Emirati officials return home and repeat the same buzzwords/phrases from Step 2, but say this will be accomplished by sticking with the current output agreement.

Washington and Boris just fell for this lip service crap a few days ago. It would be funny if it wasn't for the impending economic collapse this will cause.

The asking for more production is a political show. It is in the interests of OPEC to produce more oil to help their cause against Electric Car production. Production will rise as prices rise.

Kiwirob wrote:

Keeping with oil KSA looks like it will start to sell oil in Yuan to China, makes sense they are there biggest customer. I doubt the US could get away with doing to KSA what they did to Libya when they started to trade oil in difference currencies.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... Sales.html

That's a cool story, but China is still pegged to the dollar. It wouldn't amount to much other than a difference in currency movement for China.

It is intriguing though, as it would finally solve one of American blue collar workers biggest gripes if China Unpegged from the dollar.

OPEC sees all of these "customers" wanting more oil yet the same customers have passed legislations that will put OPEC out of business in a decade. Hmm, I wonder why the OPEC nations are being obstinate,

Hmmm, if they will be out of business in a decade, then they better get busy selling what they can't right now

william wrote:

casinterest wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

If anyone does, I doubt it will be the two big GCC states in OPEC.

Compare the two articles below about the Japanese PM's recent visit to Riyadh, posted about an hour apart:

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2022 ... rkets.html

https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/he ... tate-media

The Kyodo piece has no mention of the OPEC+ agreement for the small monthly increases.

I've been seeing a pattern over the last 1-2 weeks where the following happens:

1) Government of a large foreign consumer nation begs SA and the UAE for more production.
2) Talks end amicably and officials from consumer nation mention commitments to maintain market "stability" and "balance".
3) Saudi or Emirati officials return home and repeat the same buzzwords/phrases from Step 2, but say this will be accomplished by sticking with the current output agreement.

Washington and Boris just fell for this lip service crap a few days ago. It would be funny if it wasn't for the impending economic collapse this will cause.

The asking for more production is a political show. It is in the interests of OPEC to produce more oil to help their cause against Electric Car production. Production will rise as prices rise.

Kiwirob wrote:

Keeping with oil KSA looks like it will start to sell oil in Yuan to China, makes sense they are there biggest customer. I doubt the US could get away with doing to KSA what they did to Libya when they started to trade oil in difference currencies.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... Sales.html

That's a cool story, but China is still pegged to the dollar. It wouldn't amount to much other than a difference in currency movement for China.

It is intriguing though, as it would finally solve one of American blue collar workers biggest gripes if China Unpegged from the dollar.

OPEC sees all of these "customers" wanting more oil yet the same customers have passed legislations that will put OPEC out of business in a decade. Hmm, I wonder why the OPEC nations are being obstinate,

Oh please it's not a zero-sum game. They have been obstinate for decades, well before climate legislation, because their commodity and petrodollar arrangements give them market clout. It's power, nothing else, and it's the only pot they have to piss in.

casinterest wrote:

MarcelB21 wrote:

Hopefully this will get people to stop buying so many SUV's and trucks that they really don't need.

It might have that effect, but truthfully, Gas is not that expensive. Remember these folks are already paying 500-1000 a month on the new car payments. Or if it is older, they are paying maybe 60-150 more a month depending on driving habits. Is that really going to break them of their SUV habit? I would guess it will only matter if we see 1-2 years of high oil/gas.
I do think that when people got to buy a new car, the EV's are going to be more popular, which may eventually crush oil, on top of all the greedy drillers upping production.

They may be saying that production won't be increased, but everywhere they have a well, they are now trying to pump as much as they can.

Yeah I see what you mean, it'll surely be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm keeping an eye on Venezuela as I think they'll start pumping oil out, I hope they can get the country on its feet again...

As I mentioned before - this would be the time for the US to put a tariff on imported oil and oil products from everywhere except Canada and Mexico.

Sell it for National Defense. Sell it for creating jobs in North America.
No Oil from Despot's ! The government can use my slogan for free.

We should also look long and hard at recent long term deals to supply oil and LNG to China. They are not our friends. And certainly not now when they are aiding Putin.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

As I mentioned before - this would be the time for the US to put a tariff on imported oil and oil products from everywhere except Canada and Mexico.

Sell it for National Defense. Sell it for creating jobs in North America.
No Oil from Despot's ! The government can use my slogan for free.

We should also look long and hard at recent long term deals to supply oil and LNG to China. They are not our friends. And certainly not now when they are aiding Putin.

They are not our friends but also too important to many US companies’ revenue models. We can’t simply cut business ties to PRC overnight.

Aaron747 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

As I mentioned before - this would be the time for the US to put a tariff on imported oil and oil products from everywhere except Canada and Mexico.

Sell it for National Defense. Sell it for creating jobs in North America.
No Oil from Despot's ! The government can use my slogan for free.

We should also look long and hard at recent long term deals to supply oil and LNG to China. They are not our friends. And certainly not now when they are aiding Putin.

They are not our friends but also too important to many US companies’ revenue models. We can’t simply cut business ties to PRC overnight.

Same applies to the KSA and UAE for all the same reasons.

Ugh... what a mess, and it all seems to point back to one thing = oil.

Oil is one of the few levers we have with the Chinese. Since they can't steal it's design or technology, they are stuck with buying it (for now). They and India are all ready lining up to buy discounted Russian oil. And screw the US companies that have to rely on China for their survival. Deal with it - Walmart

Reminds me of how the Russian's were huge oil suppliers to Hitler's Germany. Then the Germans used that fuel in their war machine against them.
If they are actively supporting Russia, I'd say " force majeure" we need that fuel to support NATO and national defense.

Aesma wrote:

Can't use Apple pay, Google pay. Get your plastic card out : can't use that either. Getting hard currency from the bank ? Banned by Putin. Only worthless rubles allowed.

I think I a lot of other systems will come about because of these sanctions, there’s less than 1b people in the western alliance, the other 7b aren’t going to keep being shat on by us for too much longer. Ultimately they will do more harm than good.

M564038 wrote:

If you chose to drive a dinosaur car in Norway, you better pay a bit extra. It is our air you are polluting.

Kiwirob wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

You have nothing to complain about. Compared to prices in Norway / Europe, that is cheap.

Yup cost me 1400 NOK to fill my car the other day, it's not all due to Russia that stupid champagne socialist Norwegians voted for last year increased fuel tax which has compounded this issue.

Like the majority of Norwegians I’m still driving a dinosaur car, I do have a deposits with with my local Audi dealer for the A6 Etron Avant when it’s hits the market in 2024. I don’t really like SUV’s, I like wagons, nobody sell an EV wagon.

Kiwirob wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Can't use Apple pay, Google pay. Get your plastic card out : can't use that either. Getting hard currency from the bank ? Banned by Putin. Only worthless rubles allowed.

I think I a lot of other systems will come about because of these sanctions, there’s less than 1b people in the western alliance, the other 7b aren’t going to keep being shat on by us for too much longer. Ultimately they will do more harm than good.

When given the honest choice, most of them want to live like us, even if it means leaving their countries. Until that changes, I'm not worried.

For the Russians I would guess it's even more the case, as they're Europeans (mostly).

At the end of the day, all countries are part of the UN, and aren't supposed to take over any other country. Simple facts like that aren't easy to disguise.

Aesma wrote:

At the end of the day, all countries are part of the UN, and aren't supposed to take over any other country. Simple facts like that aren't easy to disguise.

Funny comment coming from a Frenchman.

Kiwirob : not sure what you mean, since the UN exists France has lost many territories, and not gained any.

william wrote:

OPEC sees all of these "customers" wanting more oil yet the same customers have passed legislations that will put OPEC out of business in a decade. Hmm, I wonder why the OPEC nations are being obstinate,

Fact is they have a perishable good, when they thought they had one that would last at least 50 years more.

I'm not saying no oil will be used in 50 years (but I wouldn't rule it out), but if many uses are oil free and the demand is, say, 10 millions barrels a day instead of 100 millions barrel a day, then countries relying on oil for their economy will be in trouble.

If the price goes up, or stays too high, then that accelerates the move away from oil. The Russian war accelerates it further, regardless of the price. So these countries "helping" us by adding production would be smart of them, to bolster opponents of renewables : "look, there is plenty of cheap oil ! no need to invest in something else".

Lot of geopolitics due to oil -

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/U ... n-Oil.html

Haven't been able to read the full story as it's behind paywall but seems shale wells aren't able to get much oil (although they pollute groundwater.)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/shale-comp ... 1647855002?

As commented by @Aesma, the need for energy will outpace whatever they can drill. The only way forward is renewables.

The article states that well's being drilled now are less productive than earlier ones because the best sites were drilled earlier. Happens to every oil field.

We (the US) just needs to open new areas to fracking - NY state comes to mind, North East Ohio too.

Renewables are available but are suddenly costing a fortune.https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... Rally.html

MohawkWeekend wrote:

The article states that well's being drilled now are less productive than earlier ones because the best sites were drilled earlier. Happens to every oil field.

We (the US) just need to open new areas to fracking - NY state comes to mind, North East Ohio too.

Renewables are available but are suddenly costing a fortune.https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... Rally.html

Isn't one of the issues with fracking is that it potentially can poison groundwater?

As far as lithium prices go, companies usually have long-term contracts running between 3 to 5 years or more so for those people and companies, it shouldn't be an issue. Yes, the end-user may have to pay a bit more than previously but isn't that how capitalism works?

For e.g. I just read Tesla again upped their prices and yet people still continue to wait to get a Tesla Y car. Interestingly, even Ford has similar numbers for their EV trucks, and people still continue to wait. Sadly, most of these companies never invested horizontally and vertically in how Elon has done and even what the Chinese are doing, and hence these companies are paying the price. But that probably is for another topic/thread.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

The article states that well's being drilled now are less productive than earlier ones because the best sites were drilled earlier. Happens to every oil field.

We (the US) just needs to open new areas to fracking - NY state comes to mind, North East Ohio too.

Renewables are available but are suddenly costing a fortune.https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... Rally.html

Legislation that protects extractive industries from environmental radicals is urgently needed. Opening up new areas help, but it doesn’t do a whole lot of good if the 1 year licensing process takes 4+ years and costs a fortune. Many wells, mines will end up economically inviable if you can’t forecast length of time and costs associated with environmental licensing.

PPVRA wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

The article states that well's being drilled now are less productive than earlier ones because the best sites were drilled earlier. Happens to every oil field.

We (the US) just need to open new areas to fracking - NY state comes to mind, North East Ohio too.

Renewables are available but are suddenly costing a fortune.https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... Rally.html

Legislation that protects extractive industries from environmental radicals is urgently needed. Opening up new areas help, but it doesn’t do a whole lot of good if the 1-year licensing process takes 4+ years and costs a fortune. Many wells, mines will end up economically inviable if you can’t forecast the length of time and costs associated with environmental licensing.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xPqi654sBk&t=480s . See just for 2 minutes. Now tell me who is 'environment radical' here. Oil spills have become so commonplace. Guessing it's ok if marine ecosystems get poisoned. And it's ok if people fish and then eat the same products. Also, who plays for the cleanup jobs, it would be the end-user, correct? And I did see that nobody contradicted me when I said that in fracking groundwater gets poisoned, which means it's ok for people to have their groundwater poisoned

Here are the facts -

Do oil spills still happen in the West? Yes but at a way lower frequency than in the past in the US, Canada, and Northern Europe.
Pretty sure the rest of the world still pollutes like crazy though

From https://ourworldindata.org/oil-spills

"While in the 1970s there were 24.5 large (> 700 tonnes) oil spills per year, in the 2010s the average number of large oil spills decreased to 1.7 oil spills per year."

No where in the Western world are oil spills common place. The fines levied and criminal charges are so significant that the number of spills and and quantity of oil released is way down. We also have a whole industry of lawyers and Attorney Generals who eat oil companies for lunch after oil spills.

Does fracking poison ground water? According to the US EPA https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/hfstudy/reco ... eid=332990.

The report does not say all fracking causes ground water issues. Only fracking done improperly. Now in the US, everyone is watching so incidents are few although they occur. In Countries with weak environmental over sight, it probably would destroy all the ground water.
Excerpt =
"EPA found scientific evidence that hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances. The report identifies certain conditions under which impacts from hydraulic fracturing activities can be more frequent or severe:

Water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing in times or areas of low water availability, particularly in areas with limited or declining groundwater resources;
Spills during the handling of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals or produced water that result in large volumes or high concentrations of chemicals reaching groundwater resources;
Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity, allowing gases or liquids to move to groundwater resources;
Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources;
Discharge of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water; and
Disposal or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater in unlined pits resulting in contamination of groundwater resources."

The last few months have made it clear to everybody who can fog a mirror that renewables are nowhere near ready for prime time and that disincentivizing investment in fossil fuels has been a huge mistake. This crisis could be renewable’s time to shine, but they’ve got nothing for us.

Rising inflation combined with underinvestment in energy is going to seriously hurt the poor. May be the first time in a long time the world sees poverty rise significantly. Let’s hope at least hunger doesn’t get significantly worse.

PPVRA wrote:

The last few months have made it clear to everybody who can fog a mirror that renewables are nowhere near ready for prime time and that disincentivizing investment in fossil fuels has been a huge mistake. This crisis could be renewable’s time to shine, but they’ve got nothing for us.

Rising inflation combined with underinvestment in energy is going to seriously hurt the poor. Maybe the first time in a long time the world sees poverty rise significantly. Let’s hope at least hunger doesn’t get significantly worse.

Scientific American says otherwise and so do others and EPA has been needlessly politicized -

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ing-water/

Also see this https://ccejn.org/2019/10/04/federal-st ... und-water/

The above negates what you are saying, so just like FAA, even EPA seems to be a weak regulator when it comes to their own companies

I could give many links that tell the same. so it's still an issue.

Now coming to renewables, there has not been either much investment in either propagation or R&D vis-a-vis what the Chinese are doing or what Tesla is doing. The Green New Deal was a good thing but then the right scuppered it.

See this -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9OGeiAu1g4

Unlike the U.S. seems Europe is going much ahead to it. Even the UK screaming and whatnot seems to understand that it is the only way for the future.

This report by Shell which was made in 1988 tells how global warming was due to oil, made by shell's own internal engineers and to date has proved correct. What action was taken against Shell, a slap on the wrist or even not that ?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... -Document3

It has made it clear to absolutely no one.
Fossil fuels has killed 10-20 times the amount killed in ukraine while the war has been going on.
In fact, fossil fuels kills people faster than the Holocaust did. With a low estimate from the WHO at 3 million people per year.

You have a total lack of understanding about the orders of magnitude of the lmminent climate crisis compared to anything economic dusruptions caused by a conventional war can throw at us.

PPVRA wrote:

The last few months have made it clear to everybody who can fog a mirror that renewables are nowhere near ready for prime time and that disincentivizing investment in fossil fuels has been a huge mistake. This crisis could be renewable’s time to shine, but they’ve got nothing for us.

Rising inflation combined with underinvestment in energy is going to seriously hurt the poor. May be the first time in a long time the world sees poverty rise significantly. Let’s hope at least hunger doesn’t get significantly worse.

M564038 wrote:

It has made it clear to absolutely no one.
Fossil fuels have killed 10-20 times the amount killed in Ukraine while the war has been going on.
In fact, fossil fuels kill people faster than the Holocaust did. With a low estimate from the WHO at 3 million people per year.

You have a total lack of understanding about the orders of magnitude of the imminent climate crisis compared to anything economic disruptions caused by a conventional war can throw at us.

PPVRA wrote:

The last few months have made it clear to everybody who can fog a mirror that renewables are nowhere near ready for prime time and that disincentivizing investment in fossil fuels has been a huge mistake. This crisis could be renewable’s time to shine, but they’ve got nothing for us.

Rising inflation combined with underinvestment in energy is going to seriously hurt the poor. Maybe the first time in a long time the world sees poverty rise significantly. Let’s hope at least hunger doesn’t get significantly worse.

On the money, sadly China is also a world leader in renewables and is going to make a lot of money in the process as well when exporting products or technology about renewables. 75% of the supply chain of solar is in China, the Bloomberg hot-take has lots for governments to know and come to terms with. If the EU can, if China can be so audacious then why the west. The small mini-documentary makes a lot of good points. @PPVRA, I hope you go through it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1LQSezKxnA

[quote="M564038"]It has made it clear to absolutely no one.
Fossil fuels has killed 10-20 times the amount killed in ukraine while the war has been going on.
In fact, fossil fuels kills people faster than the Holocaust did. With a low estimate from the WHO at 3 million people per year.

You have a total lack of understanding about the orders of magnitude of the lmminent climate crisis compared to anything economic dusruptions caused by a conventional war can throw at us.



I looked at the numbers on the internet - they are are all over the place. 1 million to 9 million deaths.

People do die from CO2 poisoning from a bad furnace and leaky car exhausts in garages. But other than that, I have yet to know a single person in my 65 years whose death certificate listed the cause of death as caused by exposure to fossil fuels only. In the Western World, maybe 75 years ago, but not now.

Did they die of heart disease? Was it from coal smoke or from their diet and/or smoking. Die of Lung cancer? Was it from secondary smoking, radon gas or exposure to fossil fuels. Because all 3 exist were I live.

You'd rather be in the Ukraine right now than sitting at a Miami Beach bar? Do you really believe you'll die on South Beach first due to rising water from imminent climate change than a bomb or missile in Kiev?

Killing people faster than the Holocaust ?

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I looked at the numbers on the internet - they are are all over the place. 1 million to 9 million deaths.

People do die from CO2 poisoning from a bad furnace and leaky car exhausts in garages. But other than that, I have yet to know a single person in my 65 years whose death certificate listed the cause of death as caused by exposure to fossil fuels only. In the Western World, maybe 75 years ago, but not now.

Did they die of heart disease? Was it from coal smoke or from their diet and/or smoking. Die of Lung cancer? Was it from secondary smoking, radon gas or exposure to fossil fuels. Because all 3 exist were I live.

You'd rather be in the Ukraine right now than sitting at a Miami Beach bar? Do you really believe you'll die on South Beach first due to rising water from imminent climate change than a bomb or missile in Kiev?

Killing people faster than the Holocaust ?

They started doing that here last year. We had a heatwave and people who died of a heat stroke is now being called a "climate change death". Its all politics.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

M564038 wrote:

It has made it clear to absolutely no one.
Fossil fuels has killed 10-20 times the amount killed in ukraine while the war has been going on.
In fact, fossil fuels kills people faster than the Holocaust did. With a low estimate from the WHO at 3 million people per year.

You have a total lack of understanding about the orders of magnitude of the lmminent climate crisis compared to anything economic dusruptions caused by a conventional war can throw at us.



I looked at the numbers on the internet - they are are all over the place. 1 million to 9 million deaths.

People do die from CO2 poisoning from a bad furnace and leaky car exhausts in garages. But other than that, I have yet to know a single person in my 65 years whose death certificate listed the cause of death as caused by exposure to fossil fuels only. In the Western World, maybe 75 years ago, but not now.

Did they die of heart disease? Was it from coal smoke or from their diet and/or smoking. Die of Lung cancer? Was it from secondary smoking, radon gas or exposure to fossil fuels. Because all 3 exist were I live.

You'd rather be in the Ukraine right now than sitting at a Miami Beach bar? Do you really believe you'll die on South Beach first due to rising water from imminent climate change than a bomb or missile in Kiev?

Killing people faster than the Holocaust ?

Actually, this one should be enough -

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-56801794

If the above were taken I would see many million deaths, if you live near a busy road, it is like smoking 2 packs of ciggies a day. Now, who wants that?

That is the reason that even Germany kicking and screaming is now part of 2035 ICE ban -

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/03/18/ge ... u-ice-ban/

ACDC8 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I looked at the numbers on the internet - they are are all over the place. 1 million to 9 million deaths.

People do die from CO2 poisoning from a bad furnace and leaky car exhausts in garages. But other than that, I have yet to know a single person in my 65 years whose death certificate listed the cause of death as caused by exposure to fossil fuels only. In the Western World, maybe 75 years ago, but not now.

Did they die of heart disease? Was it from coal smoke or from their diet and/or smoking. Die of Lung cancer? Was it from secondary smoking, radon gas or exposure to fossil fuels. Because all 3 exist were I live.

You'd rather be in Ukraine right now than sitting at a Miami Beach bar? Do you really believe you'll die on South Beach first due to rising water from imminent climate change than a bomb or missile in Kyiv?

Killing people faster than the Holocaust?

They started doing that here last year. We had a heatwave and people who died of a heat stroke is now being called a "climate change death". It's all politics.

I have shared Shell's own scientist's experiments in 1988 that tell how climate change will happen -

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... -Document3

it's not a long document, only 100 odd pages and that's the reason Shell also raised its oil rigs by 10 meters as they know that eventually, sea levels will rise. It's again all there in that document black and white. The only politics was played by Shell corporation which knew the truth but chose to hide it, not bring it in the public domain and acted as it was innocent and there isn't enough 'science'

pune wrote:

I have shared Shell's own scientist's experiments in 1988 that tell how climate change will happen -

You've brought this up in another thread and I made my comments in reference to it there.

Back to topic, gas prices remain around the $2/L mark here in Metro Van. Our Provincial Government is supposed to make an "announcement" in regards to helping BCers with the rising cost of fuel later this week sometime. The Province of Quebec is giving their residents a "one time" cheque of $500 (for those who earn less than $100,000/year) to help with the rising cost of living including fuel. I figure we might get another "rebate" cheque from our Provincially run insurance autocracy as we did during the pandemic. Who knows, we'll see. Honestly as I've mentioned before, I only go through a tank a month so the direct cost of fuel for my car isn't that big of a deal. My next car might require premium fuel, which equates to about an extra $8 per fill - I've done it before with my Golf R and while the initial sticker shock is there, over the long run, its not that big of a deal as the car is still quite fuel efficient.

As far as EVs go, now that VW has officially confirmed the ID Buzz, I can see that vehicle in my future down the road - not because its an EV, but simply because of the camper option which fits into my future plans in about 10-12 years or so, and the VW retro van styling is something I've been hoping that us North Americans would see again. Fingers crossed that by then range and charging time won't be a concern and the price doesn't need to be mortgaged.

ACDC8 wrote:

pune wrote:

I have shared Shell's own scientist's experiments in 1988 that tell how climate change will happen -

You've brought this up in another thread and I made my comments in reference to it there.

Back to topic, gas prices remain around the $2/L mark here in Metro Van. Our Provincial Government is supposed to make an "announcement" in regards to helping BCers with the rising cost of fuel later this week sometime. The Province of Quebec is giving its residents a "one-time" cheque of $500 (for those who earn less than $100,000/year) to help with the rising cost of living including fuel. I figure we might get another "rebate" cheque from our Provincially run insurance autocracy as we did during the pandemic. Who knows, we'll see. Honestly, as I've mentioned before, I only go through a tank a month so the direct cost of fuel for my car isn't that big of a deal. My next car might require premium fuel, which equates to about an extra $8 per fill - I've done it before with my Golf R and while the initial sticker shock is there, over the long run, it's not that big of a deal as the car is still quite fuel-efficient.

With reference to Canada, it will be similar to countries like India and other third-world countries that won't enjoy energy independence and it will fill some despot's pockets but then who cares.

Somebody had shared this, in context it still fits -

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/U ... n-Oil.html

pune wrote:

With reference to Canada, it will be similar to countries like India and other third-world countries that won't enjoy energy independence and it will fill some despot's pockets but then who cares.

All depends on who sits in Parliament and Provincial Legislatures - some invest more into homegrown oil and others into homegrown renewables.

ACDC8 wrote:

pune wrote:

With reference to Canada, it will be similar to countries like India and other third-world countries that won't enjoy energy independence and it will fill some despot's pockets but then who cares.

All depends on who sits in Parliament and Provincial Legislatures - some invest more into homegrown oil and others into homegrown renewables.

Or import. The above I agree, policies are decided by legislatures and those who give money to them, the donors, they decide the policy.

Aaron747 wrote:

These are all excellent suggestions. The GCC will throw a hissy fit though and permanently re-align with Russia/PRC.

In this fever dream, so would potentially the Japanese and Koreans, who have to be assessing US security guarantees and who are energy dependent on the ME.

ACDC8 wrote:

Right, how dare we expect a vehicle to perform to our actual needs and not just adjust our needs to the EV fanatics wet dream before we drop tens of thousands of dollars on a vehicle

I could live with 400km range, as long as I can charge it each and every time (with no negative effect on the battery life) in the same amount it would take me to fuel an ICE car - is that really such an unreasonable requirement? Or does that not fit your driver "profile"?

Realistic use case assessments have been the bane of many Green concepts for awhile. The vast majority of people don't live in Sunnyvale, California or the GTA. For many of the people outside of these places, even something as utilitarian and well designed as a RAV4 Prime doesn't really answer the mail, especially at a 45kUSD price point, if you can find one in your time zone.

I've never understood the desire on the Green Left to do mammoth public policy shifts like the world is SimCity2000 and you can just assume lots of stuff away. Look at the current US Administration day one effort to the kill the Keystone pipeline, only to find out the costs of shifting petroleum production away from a friendly stable state, like having to go hat in hand to the Venezuelans and having the formerly friendly ME states not answer your calls.

Now time to speculate over a pipeline coming from you-know-where:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/23/oil-mar ... ussia.html

FlapOperator wrote:

ACDC8 wrote:

Right, how dare we expect a vehicle to perform to our actual needs and not just adjust our needs to the EV fanatics wet dream before we drop tens of thousands of dollars on a vehicle

I could live with 400km range, as long as I can charge it each and every time (with no negative effect on the battery life) in the same amount it would take me to fuel an ICE car - is that really such an unreasonable requirement? Or does that not fit your driver "profile"?

Realistic use case assessments have been the bane of many Green concepts for awhile. The vast majority of people don't live in Sunnyvale, California or the GTA. For many of the people outside of these places, even something as utilitarian and well designed as a RAV4 Prime doesn't really answer the mail, especially at a 45kUSD price point, if you can find one in your time zone.

I've never understood the desire on the Green Left to do mammoth public policy shifts like the world is SimCity2000 and you can just assume lots of stuff away. Look at the current US Administration day one effort to the kill the Keystone pipeline, only to find out the costs of shifting petroleum production away from a friendly stable state, like having to go hat in hand to the Venezuelans and having the formerly friendly ME states not answer your calls.

We need massive policy shifts in order get ourselves off of despot/barbarian oil, but utopian policies without domestic/stable fossil-fueled or nuclear contingencies will not work.

That is exactly the problem now, and putting in tax rebates so Americans can continue their their typical driving habits will mean less funding for these renewable projects, while avoiding the real problem (supply).

Back to the topic -
Gasoline prices avg over $6 per gallon in LA
https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... 6-a-gallon
California is in for a world of hurt.

WildcatYXU wrote:

Costco in YXU is showing 1.579 CAD/l today. I filled up the rental for 1.64 CAD/l in Guelph, ON yesterday. So the situation is improving.
However...I'm commuting this week from London to Guelph to help out with some technical acceptance testing. 80 minutes one way. The price of the gas isn't hurting, as I don't pay for it, but the commute itself hurts. There are thousands who drive daily from every direction to the GTA. It takes them very often longer to drive a shorter distance than my 120km due to very heavy traffic. And they do that day after day, year after year. This is what hurts, the high gas prices are just adding insult to the injury. After all, we can always make some more money. Our time is gone forever.

We were down to 1.81L Monday but its creeping up at 1.85L now. I have been driving the same route for 20+ years, it all divided four-lane so its 33km to work in 15-20min and my Civic sips the fuel. Lucky for me I pass about 2 cars into work and a few coming home, I don't think I could do a commute that's the same distance and takes an hour due to traffic, whitch wastes more gas. I cant remember 1.64 lol

C.

AirKevin wrote:

Classa64 wrote:

How are prices in your area?
Are you thinking of switching to a more efficient car because of it?

Last I checked, it was $4.919 a gallon for super unleaded, which resulted in me spending $94.00 for refueling. As for switching to a more fuel efficient car, not really an option for me given that there isn't one out there that is going to simultaneously accomplish the things that I need to be able to do with it.

$2.05 a Liter for Super here, and ya if what you need uses a lot of gas then you have to just pay. My brother in-law filled up his F150 and some gas cans and was $300 lighter and that's getting gas from the few First nations gas stations in the area charging $1.63 for Reg

I paid 3.86 here today. I expect it to be over 4 by next week.

3.86 what for how much in which currency?

LabQuest wrote:

I paid 3.86 here today. I expect it to be over 4 by next week.

SEAorPWM wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

ACDC8 wrote:

Right, how dare we expect a vehicle to perform to our actual needs and not just adjust our needs to the EV fanatics wet dream before we drop tens of thousands of dollars on a vehicle

I could live with 400km range, as long as I can charge it each and every time (with no negative effect on the battery life) in the same amount it would take me to fuel an ICE car - is that really such an unreasonable requirement? Or does that not fit your driver "profile"?

Realistic use case assessments have been the bane of many Green concepts for awhile. The vast majority of people don't live in Sunnyvale, California or the GTA. For many of the people outside of these places, even something as utilitarian and well designed as a RAV4 Prime doesn't really answer the mail, especially at a 45kUSD price point, if you can find one in your time zone.

I've never understood the desire on the Green Left to do mammoth public policy shifts like the world is SimCity2000 and you can just assume lots of stuff away. Look at the current US Administration day one effort to the kill the Keystone pipeline, only to find out the costs of shifting petroleum production away from a friendly stable state, like having to go hat in hand to the Venezuelans and having the formerly friendly ME states not answer your calls.

We need massive policy shifts in order get ourselves off of despot/barbarian oil, but utopian policies without domestic/stable fossil-fueled or nuclear contingencies will not work.

That is exactly the problem now, and putting in tax rebates so Americans can continue their their typical driving habits will mean less funding for these renewable projects, while avoiding the real problem (supply).

And more inflation.

M564038 wrote:

3.86 what for how much in which currency?

LabQuest wrote:

I paid 3.86 here today. I expect it to be over 4 by next week.

$3.86 for a gallon

IMO areas of the US that has at least 2 of these 3 things has lower fuel prices -

1) have local refineries supplied by domestic or Canadian crude
2) have major product pipelines (example North Carolina which does vs Florida which does not)
have lower fuel prices.
3) Reasonable fuel taxes

Where I live (Ohio) we have all three so our fuel is trending towards $3.85

FlapOperator wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

These are all excellent suggestions. The GCC will throw a hissy fit though and permanently re-align with Russia/PRC.

In this fever dream, so would potentially the Japanese and Koreans, who have to be assessing US security guarantees and who are energy dependent on the ME.

I have no idea in what universe one could entertain Japan/ROK aligning permanently with the PRC.

Aaron747 wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

These are all excellent suggestions. The GCC will throw a hissy fit though and permanently re-align with Russia/PRC.

In this fever dream, so would potentially the Japanese and Koreans, who have to be assessing US security guarantees and who are energy dependent on the ME.

I have no idea in what universe one could entertain Japan/ROK aligning permanently with the PRC.

One in which the PRC is controlling the sea lanes of ME crude to Far East markets, and where American security guarantees are next to worthless.