Register to Comment
Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 83
Like Tree18Likes
  1. #1
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    39,743

    It is not all about Trump: Follow the Fossil Fuel

    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.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #2
    mr_anderson mr_anderson is offline
    mr_anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    9,437

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    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/...-only-8-years/

    Furthermore, the battery build costs (unsubsidised) are set to plummet.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...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 f˙cked.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #3
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    39,743

    Quote Originally Posted by mr_anderson View Post
    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/...-only-8-years/

    Furthermore, the battery build costs (unsubsidised) are set to plummet.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...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 f˙cked.
    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.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #4
    ger12 ger12 is offline
    ger12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    45,586

    It was always about money and energy.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #5
    sic transit sic transit is offline
    sic transit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    23,681

    Quote Originally Posted by mr_anderson View Post
    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/...-only-8-years/

    Furthermore, the battery build costs (unsubsidised) are set to plummet.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...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 f˙cked.
    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.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #6
    Mad as Fish Mad as Fish is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    24,492

    Quote Originally Posted by mr_anderson View Post
    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/...-only-8-years/

    Furthermore, the battery build costs (unsubsidised) are set to plummet.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...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 f˙cked.
    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.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #7
    sic transit sic transit is offline
    sic transit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    23,681

    Quote Originally Posted by Mad as Fish View Post
    Ahem, where is the electricity for the batteries to come from if not fossil fuels?

    The alternative, Hydrogen, is also highly oil dependent.
    For now largely yes but there is an accelerated drive towards renewables , whatever people think of the official approach to the industry.

    UK set for first full day without coal power - BBC News
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #8
    benroe benroe is offline
    benroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    6,783

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    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.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #9
    Surkov Surkov is offline
    Surkov's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    2,138

    Quote Originally Posted by Mad as Fish View Post
    Ahem, where is the electricity for the batteries to come from if not fossil fuels?
    And where will the electricity come from to produce a billion electric cars?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #10
    Analyzer Analyzer is offline
    Analyzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    42,866

    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.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment