It is not all about Trump: Follow the Fossil Fuel

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,623
Those who love conspiracy theories may like this one, my own personal deduction.

It is clear from Trump's posturing and foreign policy visits that he loves these countries above all others - Russia and Saudi Arabia, a surrogate for a plethora of gulf states. With Russia as a "grey area", the fact is that if Cruz, Rubio or Bush had won the Presidency, their policy in relation to fossil fuel would not be much different.

Both Russia and Saudi Arabia are brutal authoritarian regimes, enough to provoke disgust among most, but they all have something else in common - oil, or more accurately fossil fuel. Both are petro-states with a command of the world's greatest natural resource.

OTOH, other US allies from the Cold War era, are fossil fuel consumers rather than producers, and this are less important in Trumptopia.

So, let us say that a wealthy and powerful elite have decided that command of the world's oil and gas resources is the key to global power in the 21st century and have elected Trump to make sure command of those resources are kept in the "right" (our) hands?

An alliance of petro-states with command of 75% of fossil fuel resources could pretty much dominate the planet. It is going to take decades for alternative sources to be sufficiently available to the displace what are now "traditional" fuel sources. They pollute and alter the climate, but if you are wealthy enough, you probably would not consider that a problem.

At worst, there is a "window" in which fossil fuels are extremely important - the next generation of alternative power sources will have be made with energy generated by fossil fuels. In that window, you can make a pile of money.

So forget about the "clash of civilisations" and "terrorism" (just a word to throw that those who stand in your way): follow the fossil fuel. Oh, terrorists do exist, but remember both Saudi Arabia and Russia funded a lot of them.

But why Iran as an enemy? There are complications over Israel, which has influence in Washington, and of course Saudi Arabia see Iran as its main rival. So the Mullah's are not at the Top Table - yet. They could make it via Russia, which is there ally, and a brokered Israel-Palestine agreement.

Outside the Pale, as we saw, are the 6 states left G7 states and the Paris Accord, along with China, and the majority of the world's states, who signed up to an Agreement that virtually guaranteed the death of fossil fuel as an industry, committed the world to leaving most of its fossil fuel reserves in the ground. An Agreement that would strand $trillions in assets of Russia, Saudi Arabia and the USA.

So when Trump withdraws the US from the Paris Agreement, I expect the petro-states to follow. Not only that, they will make a strong attempt to destroy the Accord completely. Even if they stay the agreement, they can still destroy it from the inside. Time will tell.

So I am putting it out there as the conspiracy theory du jour. An interesting one to watch over the coming months and years.

PS Just off on a a 6-week vacation, where I intend to not follow news or sports. Ok, maybe a little.
 


mr_anderson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
9,709
An alliance of petro-states with command of 75% of fossil fuel resources could pretty much dominate the planet.
It is going to take decades for alternative sources to be sufficiently available to the displace what are now "traditional" fuel sources.
They pollute and alter the climate, but if you are wealthy enough, you probably would not consider that a problem.
It's not.
It is estimated that in 8 years, practically all new cars will be electric, not petrol or diesel.
And that's all you need.

https://www.rte.ie/lifestyle/motors/2017/0520/876698-petrol-and-diesel-engines-have-a-lifespan-of-only-8-years/

Furthermore, the battery build costs (unsubsidised) are set to plummet.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-26/electric-cars-seen-cheaper-than-gasoline-models-within-a-decade?cmpid=BBD052617_BIZ&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=170526&utm_campaign=bloombergdaily


Yes, there will be the existing stock of motor vehicles that will need fossil fuels, but that's almost irrelevant, as oil prices are hugely influenced by future expectations.

It will only take 20 or 30 years for the current stock of petrol & diesels to be off the road through general obsolescence.
Then that entire demand for oil will be gone.
Would you be a buyer of a commodity that could see 50% of it's demand wiped out over the coming years ?


Breakdown of oil consumption by sector | GlobalPetrolPrices.com

There may be short-term blips, but overall, oil is fúcked.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,623
It's not.
It is estimated that in 8 years, practically all new cars will be electric, not petrol or diesel.
And that's all you need.

https://www.rte.ie/lifestyle/motors/2017/0520/876698-petrol-and-diesel-engines-have-a-lifespan-of-only-8-years/

Furthermore, the battery build costs (unsubsidised) are set to plummet.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-26/electric-cars-seen-cheaper-than-gasoline-models-within-a-decade?cmpid=BBD052617_BIZ&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=170526&utm_campaign=bloombergdaily


Yes, there will be the existing stock of motor vehicles that will need fossil fuels, but that's almost irrelevant, as oil prices are hugely influenced by future expectations.

It will only take 20 or 30 years for the current stock of petrol & diesels to be off the road through general obsolescence.
Then that entire demand for oil will be gone.
Would you be a buyer of a commodity that could see 50% of it's demand wiped out over the coming years ?


Breakdown of oil consumption by sector | GlobalPetrolPrices.com

There may be short-term blips, but overall, oil is fúcked.
Your chart is oil only, you are leaving out coal and gas.



What happens when you are selling a prime resource, and it looks as if the world it about to ban it?

What did the British Empire do when China tried to ban the opium trade? They went to war.

In the long run, opium was f*cked also, but in the short term there was still a lot of money to be made. The British probably reckoned that once they broke into the Chinese market, they could win with any commodity, and possibly even conquer parts of China like they did with India.

My hypothetical fossil-fuel alliance see $trillions of their assets stranded and left in the ground - there value reduced to 0 in the space of a decade. No group have ever given up power without a struggle, and my group are no different. If they can capture the political and economic high ground, even temporarily, then they can organise the future to suit them.

PS There is a bit more to it than transportation ... the prime use of fossil fuel world wide is in electricity generation. You can have all the electric cars you like, but if the charging power is coming off fossil fuel sources, then you have just shifted the problem.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
It was always about money and energy.
 

sic transit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
25,397
It's not.
It is estimated that in 8 years, practically all new cars will be electric, not petrol or diesel.
And that's all you need.

https://www.rte.ie/lifestyle/motors/2017/0520/876698-petrol-and-diesel-engines-have-a-lifespan-of-only-8-years/

Furthermore, the battery build costs (unsubsidised) are set to plummet.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-26/electric-cars-seen-cheaper-than-gasoline-models-within-a-decade?cmpid=BBD052617_BIZ&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=170526&utm_campaign=bloombergdaily


Yes, there will be the existing stock of motor vehicles that will need fossil fuels, but that's almost irrelevant, as oil prices are hugely influenced by future expectations.

It will only take 20 or 30 years for the current stock of petrol & diesels to be off the road through general obsolescence.
Then that entire demand for oil will be gone.
Would you be a buyer of a commodity that could see 50% of it's demand wiped out over the coming years ?


Breakdown of oil consumption by sector | GlobalPetrolPrices.com

There may be short-term blips, but overall, oil is fúcked.
Think that chap's timeline is way out of whack but by 15-20 years out sure. We'll always have a use for fossil fuels but at a very diminished rate. The growth of ME sovereign funds is a clear indicator that some of them also see this coming.
 

Mad as Fish

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
24,185
It's not.
It is estimated that in 8 years, practically all new cars will be electric, not petrol or diesel.
And that's all you need.

https://www.rte.ie/lifestyle/motors/2017/0520/876698-petrol-and-diesel-engines-have-a-lifespan-of-only-8-years/

Furthermore, the battery build costs (unsubsidised) are set to plummet.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-26/electric-cars-seen-cheaper-than-gasoline-models-within-a-decade?cmpid=BBD052617_BIZ&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=170526&utm_campaign=bloombergdaily


Yes, there will be the existing stock of motor vehicles that will need fossil fuels, but that's almost irrelevant, as oil prices are hugely influenced by future expectations.

It will only take 20 or 30 years for the current stock of petrol & diesels to be off the road through general obsolescence.
Then that entire demand for oil will be gone.
Would you be a buyer of a commodity that could see 50% of it's demand wiped out over the coming years ?


Breakdown of oil consumption by sector | GlobalPetrolPrices.com

There may be short-term blips, but overall, oil is fúcked.
Ahem, where is the electricity for the batteries to come from if not fossil fuels? Less than 1% of the worlds energy comes from wind power overall.

The alternative, Hydrogen, is also highly oil dependent.

Li-ion batteries also require a large amount of cobalt, which is not particularly abundant. Don't believe everything that Musk spouts.
 

sic transit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
25,397

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,066
Those who love conspiracy theories may like this one, my own personal deduction.

It is clear from Trump's posturing and foreign policy visits that he loves these countries above all others - Russia and Saudi Arabia, a surrogate for a plethora of gulf states. With Russia as a "grey area", the fact is that if Cruz, Rubio or Bush had won the Presidency, their policy in relation to fossil fuel would not be much different.

Both Russia and Saudi Arabia are brutal authoritarian regimes, enough to provoke disgust among most, but they all have something else in common - oil, or more accurately fossil fuel. Both are petro-states with a command of the world's greatest natural resource.

OTOH, other US allies from the Cold War era, are fossil fuel consumers rather than producers, and this are less important in Trumptopia.

So, let us say that a wealthy and powerful elite have decided that command of the world's oil and gas resources is the key to global power in the 21st century and have elected Trump to make sure command of those resources are kept in the "right" (our) hands?

.
Your theory falls down here, wealthy elites did not elect Trump, joe soap did.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
45,623
I disagree with Trump on coal. The era of coal is over. Nuclear provides many options that are less polluting.

Appalachia needs a new business model, apart from joining the military or "bread & circuses".

The residents need to get rid of the televisions. Try reading and learning instead.

However, OwedtoQatar, you might wish to get over the HRC thing.

Unless you are referencing Hillary being supportive of Nuclear. But then maybe that is because of the Podestas and Uranium One.

Which is probably not a topic you will wish to discuss as it involves the Russians, lobbying and HRC.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,623
I disagree with Trump on coal. The era of coal is over.

Appalachia needs a new business model, apart from joining the military or "bread & circuses".

The residents need to get rid of the televisions. Try reading and learning instead.

However, OwedtoQatar, you might wish to get over the HRC thing.
Why, I already have. This is about the next election, not the last one.

Though, the bare-faced cynicism of Trump's last campaign, in which you participated to the full, is worthy of a mention more than once. He will no doubt try it on again.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
33,003
It's not.
It is estimated that in 8 years, practically all new cars will be electric, not petrol or diesel.
And that's all you need.
Its a very silly belief, there are no signs that battery technology will allow for electric cars within 8 years.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,623
Your theory falls down here, wealthy elites did not elect Trump, joe soap did.
Joe Soap is more easily fooled, sad to say.

And I need only mention the words "Robert Mercer".

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage

And "Scott Pruitt", not a billionaire, but an ambitious lawyer, owned by the fossil fuel industry.

https://newrepublic.com/article/142671/scott-pruitt-hypocritical-liar-trump-deserves

Incidentally, I am not one for conspiracy theories in general, but it seems worth while to put this one out there. It is a lot better than most.
 

sic transit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
25,397
Its a very silly belief, there are no signs that battery technology will allow for electric cars within 8 years.
He's drinking the Elon Musk koolade, no bad thing betimes but Tesla's problem is more mundane, how to get actual production levels to match these expectations.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
33,003
There are plenty of signs, though I am not sure if "8 years" is the timeline.
There are incremental developments taking place but to completely replace the ICE, there will need to be a completely revolutionary storage system and there are no signs of that happening at present.
 

Surkov

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
4,614
Personally I believe the future is in two forms of renewable energy, solar and wind.

Solar meaning relying on the sunshine coming in through the windows of your house to provide a bit of heat.

Wind as in back to using sails.


:shock:


Not exactly the utopia some envisage, but at least it will tick the renewable box.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
45,623
Thorium.

It was discontinued during the Cold War in preference to Uranium.

Thorium provides alternatives to Base Load Electricity supply.

Renewable sources aee variable. An anchor supply is needed via plants.

Batteries are useful - but the issue of scale requires base load.

Trump points toward coal. I think Thorium Nuclear is much better.

Appalachia needs a better business model.
 

Gurdiev77

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
2,610
Those who love conspiracy theories may like this one, my own personal deduction.

It is clear from Trump's posturing and foreign policy visits that he loves these countries above all others - Russia and Saudi Arabia, a surrogate for a plethora of gulf states. With Russia as a "grey area", the fact is that if Cruz, Rubio or Bush had won the Presidency, their policy in relation to fossil fuel would not be much different.

Both Russia and Saudi Arabia are brutal authoritarian regimes, enough to provoke disgust among most, but they all have something else in common - oil, or more accurately fossil fuel. Both are petro-states with a command of the world's greatest natural resource.

OTOH, other US allies from the Cold War era, are fossil fuel consumers rather than producers, and this are less important in Trumptopia.

So, let us say that a wealthy and powerful elite have decided that command of the world's oil and gas resources is the key to global power in the 21st century and have elected Trump to make sure command of those resources are kept in the "right" (our) hands?

An alliance of petro-states with command of 75% of fossil fuel resources could pretty much dominate the planet. It is going to take decades for alternative sources to be sufficiently available to the displace what are now "traditional" fuel sources. They pollute and alter the climate, but if you are wealthy enough, you probably would not consider that a problem.

At worst, there is a "window" in which fossil fuels are extremely important - the next generation of alternative power sources will have be made with energy generated by fossil fuels. In that window, you can make a pile of money.

So forget about the "clash of civilisations" and "terrorism" (just a word to throw that those who stand in your way): follow the fossil fuel. Oh, terrorists do exist, but remember both Saudi Arabia and Russia funded a lot of them.

But why Iran as an enemy? There are complications over Israel, which has influence in Washington, and of course Saudi Arabia see Iran as its main rival. So the Mullah's are not at the Top Table - yet. They could make it via Russia, which is there ally, and a brokered Israel-Palestine agreement.

Outside the Pale, as we saw, are the 6 states left G7 states and the Paris Accord, along with China, and the majority of the world's states, who signed up to an Agreement that virtually guaranteed the death of fossil fuel as an industry, committed the world to leaving most of its fossil fuel reserves in the ground. An Agreement that would strand $trillions in assets of Russia, Saudi Arabia and the USA.

So when Trump withdraws the US from the Paris Agreement, I expect the petro-states to follow. Not only that, they will make a strong attempt to destroy the Accord completely. Even if they stay the agreement, they can still destroy it from the inside. Time will tell.

So I am putting it out there as the conspiracy theory du jour. An interesting one to watch over the coming months and years.

PS Just off on a a 6-week vacation, where I intend to not follow news or sports. Ok, maybe a little.
Alternative energy production is now quite advanced globally. The gulf states are amongst the leaders in the field. California runs on 29% renewables. Scandinavia and Germany are very well on the way, and in some cases have reached the tipping.

China and India, I'm sure have made provsiion too.

So what would the end game be form the conspiracy theorists ?
 


New Threads

Top