Comments by "Neolithic Transit Revolution" (@neolithictransitrevolution427) on "PolyMatter" channel.

PolyMath pinned a top comment pointing out fracking for oil has literally never made a profit and lost 10s of billions. And it is an environment problem for massive methane leaks and ground water contamination. But most importantly, it's barely oil. It's closer to NGLs. If a barrel of Brent crude gets you a third a barrel of diesel, WTI gets you like a 10th. It's far to light to use without mixing with heavy crudes, which is why the US imports heavy crude and exports shale oil to other countries that mix it.
1
I can agree the 70mph is perfectly fine. But I mean "live ruined" like just don't speed. It's a government built highway it isn't an infringement of rights to set a limit.
1
"Well, what kind of American are you"
1
@Commie Monkey I don't disagree, and neither do they, but I think of all the countries which are officially Socialist it has been the most successful and has among the most interesting economic systems.
1
@tecumsehneo2174 Well, I guess, first of all, I don't. I mean, do I learn from YouTube? Sure. But not Geo politics or economics. So why do I care? That's a genuinely interesting question. I suppose it's because I know Vietnam to be an exceptionally well run country. I mean, it's not Western Europe, but given the massive war in the last 50 years, and the state of the government/society prior to that, the success in advancing the nation is rare, to say the least. At the same time (being North American) the extent to which a free market is indoctrinated as the only reasonable course is unsettling at times. I mean, I fully support using a market economy and allowing free enterprise, but I also hate paying taxes. So, examples of countries that are able to demonstrate high GDP growth, with government corperations displacing a portion of tax revenue AND Land value collection displacing another portion is very interesting. I would like the general public to know more about such a system. And to see that competently operated government intervention can push forward that growth. Because the upcoming signs of a recession scare me, and I am well aware the solution to "supply chain shortages" is investing in more supply, not hiking interest rates.
1
@DRE_Talks I mean I don't know the creator that well, bur RIP
1
@tecumsehneo2174 I'm no linguist, but I do know some about China's ethic groups and certainly the geography and climate. I'm not trying to say the rise (resurrection) of china has not been impressive. But Vietnam has had at least a similar rise, without a equivalent jump in inequality (which is quite impressive considering it's political goals). And China has not been involved in an equivalent war; yes there was the century of humiliation but that wasn't as physically destructive as two world powers of the 1970s using your country as a battle ground. I will read that paper though.
1
@tecumsehneo2174 Again, I doubt I would learn to much from the video, it's really more about what other people learn. I am not trying to disparage China's economic success, but it does seem to have come at a greater political cost, particularly personal freedoms, than Vietnams. You can say the PRC is 70 years old, but as a nation its thousands of years old, and honestly I think its success is less impressive than the failure of the Ming Dynasty is disappointing. I do think its misleading to say Vietnam had the support of the Chinese/USSR and the Americans though. The support was for killing and buring down the other half of the country, respectively. And after the war, support from both countries was non existent.
1
@tecumsehneo2174 Uuuummmm... I didn't mean to say I could learn more from this channel, I literally only am saying a lot of people do learn from this channel. So I would appreciate if it covered certain topics. Also, the Korean war was brutal. Only half the country has really recovered. The Vietnamese war was brutal also, but, where the socialist half of Korea is disgusting, the socialist half of Vietnam is the entire, beautifully run country. Like it's not a crime against China (not that I would care) to suggest another country has done something better. So you don't have to defend China.
1
@tecumsehneo2174 I mean, even the people who escape tend to confirm the sad reality. And while escaping, they get shot at, which, I mean, even the Amish allow you to compare the two life styles. Cuba has been under sanctions for longer, and I think I would rather live there. In general, if you have to make the people believe you're a god for economic policy to work, I have my concerns. Certainly it's possible North Korea could be successful in a few decades, it would really only take competant management.
1
@thajemm4371 It's when you let people who like driving cars get all the subsidies they want.
1
@indexpictures Marx never explicitly defined communism or socialism though, and used them largely interchangably.
1
@StetoGuy I think formally Fascism allows a mix of ownership types, with the important (in terms of labour relations) point being that the government mediates between workers and owners organizations while also influencing investment for national goals.
1
@StetoGuy I agree, but even large corperations, in my understanding, can be nominally privately owned. The states ability to dicate to them for set goals may exist, but that doesn't mean they are run by state bureaucrats or that the profits all directly go to the state. The state certainly could own these corperations, but fascism might require seperations to the concepts of control of the means of production and ownership of the means of production. I'd also say National Syndicalism is a sub component of Fascism, where fascism also includes a self sufficient Autarky and several other lesser requirements like a national rebirth myth, a cult leader personality, and a strong security state.
1
@StetoGuy Not all corperations are publicly traded though. Some are entirely owned by one person, others are owned by multiple people but but not on a public exchange. Amd even publicly traded corperations have shares that are privately owned. I understand your point of differentiation though. A society where all corperations are publicly traded, and the majority shares are owned by average people or pension funds is different. I do think the seperation is useful. For example, I own my home, but I can't build a factory or turn the inside into a shop because I'm not in control. I suppose you could strech that and say I don't own it, but I think the argument that any regulation means ownership is impossible quickly becomes meaningless. Likewise, private individuals could own a pharmacompany, but that doesn't mean using the war measures act in the US to meet certain output means they have lost ownership, only control. I still disagree that Fascism is equivalent to National Syndicalism, but I do agree it is highly connected.
1
@LeftWingNationalist Part of the invasion was to expand Germany East ao that full self sufficientcy could be reached, the infamous elbow room. I'd also quickly argue that the Nazis were not truely Fascist, but rather this was a lable slapped on by the British to mean bad guys. In general the Nazi system did not meet requirements in the Fascists manifesto.
1
@StetoGuy I believe Dyson is solely owned by James Dyson. I know a corperation is a legal entity, but you can own 100% shares of an LLC. It's just not generally smart to own more than you meed for voting, better to diversify. I hear what your saying about ownership, but I think practically the outcome of that statement is all wealth in the world is owned by the government, because I know of no governments which are explicitly forbidden from passing regulation on usage or raising taxes. Nominal ownership does exist within these systems, and for the most part that means a level of control, and certainly means being allowed to collect a profit from the business operations.
1
@Nick-gj6je on a one year basis, yes. But in terms of returning all the capital invested over the last decade investors are breaking even or taking a hair cut. Again, that's why we aren't seeing significant reinvestment and high dividends. It's capital fleeing the industry now that, for the first time, there is enough revenue to actually pay some out. It's also we see Exon and industry majors taking over. They have the capital and need to have reserves on books. The low rates of return are worth it to diversify portfolios already including international heavy blends, including Canadian oil sands.
1
@sc1338 well, about which part? Because Permian oil is getting lighter. It's starting to lower the value of Brent. As rigs move into less valuable locations in the play, the shale gets tighter, and so the oil gets lighter. And as part of that, the ratio of Natural Gas to oil increases, and wells get less productive. Bakken and Eagle Ford, the second and third largest shake plays and operating before the Permian, are both well below their peak production, although both are very productive gas fields. One of the issues is simply that as wells get gassier, you start having difficulty finding take away for it, and you can flair but your basically burning half your product. And the Bakken is really only holding production something close to stable by using wells drilled before (DUCs) Covid that weren't brought into production. The Shale oil industry didn't make a dollar before 2022. Rigs today are down, even in the Permian (although not as bad as Nationally), new drilling is down, DUCs are down, in 2020 there were over 3000 DUCs in the Permian, by 2023 that was down to 1000, which is still decreasing but slower. I'm not saying the Permian will stop producing oil. It has the advantage of being near the coast and a tonne of infrastructure. Technology is improving, and new wells in the Permian are actual more productive today than in the past, but productivity per lateral foot drilled is declining, which shows the actual resource is depleting. But ultimately Fracking is an amazing technology to produce cheap natural gas - particularly if we can find a way to not use Diesel to run the pumps. Oil is a side product for a limited number of years after the play goes into production.
1
@mignik01 I don't understand why YouTube clears comments so cavalierly, but I hate to think it's probably because two people talking drives less engagement than 50 people each yelling at 50 people. But always copy anything longer than a sentence now. I think 2 things are important to consider on demand drop. Firstly, I'd say that in urban, developed areas including most of North America, Europe, Asia, and India, we'll see EVs quickly dominate. * See more below. This will lower global oil gasoline demand in particular. Secondly, a barrel of oil is a mix of different sized hydrocarbons, about half of those are in the size range we use for gasoline. All of which means for a refinery to survive, it will be selling very cheap gas, and have to make all its revenue on naphtha feedstock and propane sales, and heavier molecule diesel and jet fuel and lubricants, which means the prices will have to increase. There is some extent to which we can change the ratio, either seperating more out of the gas or cracking it if the demand for petrofeed stock exists. But rebuilding refineries is quite rare in modern day. The point being actual oil demand can't lower significantly if diesel doesn't alongside gasoline, and diesel prices will increase and push away demand. ** On the otherhand, I expect by 2027 declining long-term Chinese demand will trigger an OPEC price war to kill fracking and Canadian oil sands mining (not the SAGD, the strip mines), and likely succeed, probably dumping a lot of cheap gasoline in Africa, particularly the east coast. Or else I expect OPEC to collapses with enormous oversupply the result anyway. Particularly since I think the Ukraine war will have to end by 2026 and Russian oil will return to Europe. So low oil prices might keep diesel and other Petro products cheap at the expense of import dependency for north america. But we know large cut to gasoline demand will occur, and this will ultimately require other uses to decline as well or else dump cheap gasoline somewhere. *China in particular already has half of new vehicle sales as EVs. China represents something like 40% of oil imports? And at the same time has a protected market providing 40% of their oil today. Chinese demand dropping in half over the next few years would be 10 million barrels a day gone alone. While South Korea and Japan might issue tariffs in Asia, I can't see south Korea EVs not growling rapidly. I can't see Indonesia not striking a trade deal to access cheap EVs for cities (while pushing on its horrible Palm Oil biodiesel plan). Europe (EU) is obviously pushing EVs, although only 20% of vehicles are EVs (because they did a terrible job with industrial policy and Germany will collapse if it can't sell cars), but still one of the largest importers cutting demand, and I can't imagine in the next few years Russian oil doesn't return. **There is a bitumen to diesel only plant in Alberta; that works because all the bitumen is larger than diesel and is broken down, shale oils greatest issue is it has so little diesel, shale oil is why diesel prices are no longer cheaper than gasoline and propane is dirt cheap. And I've seen several refineries being turned into biodeisel (which I hate), but that does mean more supply for diesel, although is also a substitute.
1
@mignik01 I don't understand why YouTube clears comments so cavalierly, but I hate to think it's probably because two people talking drives less engagement than 50 people each yelling at 50 people. But always copy anything longer than a sentence now. I think 2 things are important to consider on demand drop. Firstly, I'd say that in urban, developed areas including most of North America, Europe, Asia, and India, we'll see EVs quickly dominate. * See more below. This will lower global oil gasoline demand in particular. Secondly, a barrel of oil is a mix of different sized hydrocarbons, about half of those are in the size range we use for gasoline. All of which means for a refinery to survive, it will be selling very cheap gas, and have to make all its revenue on naphtha feedstock and propane sales, and heavier molecule diesel and jet fuel and lubricants, which means the prices will have to increase. There is some extent to which we can change the ratio, either seperating more out of the gas or cracking it if the demand for petrofeed stock exists. But rebuilding refineries is quite rare in modern day. The point being actual oil demand can't lower significantly if diesel doesn't alongside gasoline, and diesel prices will increase and push away demand. ** On the otherhand, I expect by 2027 declining long-term Chinese demand will trigger an OPEC price war to kill fracking and Canadian oil sands mining (not the SAGD, the strip mines), and likely succeed, probably dumping a lot of cheap gasoline in Africa, particularly the east coast. Or else I expect OPEC to collapses with enormous oversupply the result anyway. Particularly since I think the Ukraine war will have to end by 2026 and Russian oil will return to Europe. So low oil prices might keep diesel and other Petro products cheap at the expense of import dependency for north america. But we know large cut to gasoline demand will occur, and this will ultimately require other uses to decline as well or else dump cheap gasoline somewhere. *China in particular already has half of new vehicle sales as EVs. China represents something like 40% of oil imports? And at the same time has a protected market providing 40% of their oil today. Chinese demand dropping in half over the next few years would be 10 million barrels a day gone alone. While South Korea and Japan might issue tariffs in Asia, I can't see south Korea EVs not growling rapidly. I can't see Indonesia not striking a trade deal to access cheap EVs for cities (while pushing on its horrible Palm Oil biodiesel plan). Europe (EU) is obviously pushing EVs, although only 20% of vehicles are EVs (because they did a terrible job with industrial policy and Germany will collapse if it can't sell cars), but still one of the largest importers cutting demand, and I can't imagine in the next few years Russian oil doesn't return. **There is a bitumen to diesel only plant in Alberta; that works because all the bitumen is larger than diesel and is broken down, shale oils greatest issue is it has so little diesel, shale oil is why diesel prices are no longer cheaper than gasoline and propane is dirt cheap. And I've seen several refineries being turned into biodeisel (which I hate), but that does mean more supply for diesel, although is also a substitute.
1
@mignik01 I think if you're in suburban neighborhoods in California or the Midwest, or even the east coast with some improvement, roof top solar will make sense, and even in cities commercial roof top will provide a considerable amount of power with little to know distance. And Utilities solar is also less expensive nuclear. Again, parts of Europe and New York, megacities in Asia, nuclear is a strong fit. But India, China, the middle east, most of Africa, California to Houston to Chicago, are all going to be cheaper today with solar than using nuclear without a breakthrough in SMRs. I'd say a majority of the world's population and America's population live in regions where cloud cover is easily predictable and very low for seasonal periods. The issue is it's hard to scale up nuclear for 1MW of power. It's very rare the grid needs GWs of power suddenly turned on. Solar is cheap to keep adding incrementally everywhere, Nuclear is cheap to build one really big one, but quickly gets to a point where it's pushing down prices. But again it's kinda moot. I would have been perfectly happy if we did huge amounts of nuclear. But we didn't, and no one is really building it, and solar is still decreasing in cost which means it's suitable in less ideal locations.
1
@mignik01 I think 2 things are important to consider on demand drop. Firstly, I'd say that in urban, developed areas including most of North America, Europe, Asia, and India, we'll see EVs quickly dominate. * See more below. This will lower global oil gasoline demand in particular. Secondly, a barrel of oil is a mix of different sized hydrocarbons, about half of those are in the size range we use for gasoline. All of which means for a refinery to survive, it will be selling very cheap gas, and have to make all its revenue on naphtha feedstock and propane sales, and heavier molecule diesel and jet fuel and lubricants, which means the prices will have to increase. There is some extent to which we can change the ratio, either seperating more out of the gas or cracking it if the demand for petrofeed stock exists. But rebuilding refineries is quite rare in modern day. The point being actual oil demand can't lower significantly if diesel doesn't alongside gasoline, and diesel prices will increase and push away demand. ** On the otherhand, I expect by 2027 declining long-term Chinese demand will trigger an OPEC price war to kill fracking and Canadian oil sands mining (not the SAGD, the strip mines), and likely succeed, probably dumping a lot of cheap gasoline in Africa, particularly the east coast. Or else I expect OPEC to collapses with enormous oversupply the result anyway. Particularly since I think the Ukraine war will have to end by 2026 and Russian oil will return to Europe. So low oil prices might keep diesel and other Petro products cheap at the expense of import dependency for north america. But we know large cut to gasoline demand will occur, and this will ultimately require other uses to decline as well or else dump cheap gasoline somewhere. *China in particular already has half of new vehicle sales as EVs. China represents something like 40% of oil imports? And at the same time has a protected market providing 40% of their oil today. Chinese demand dropping in half over the next few years would be 10 million barrels a day gone alone. While South Korea and Japan might issue tariffs in Asia, I can't see south Korea EVs not growling rapidly. I can't see Indonesia not striking a trade deal to access cheap EVs for cities (while pushing on its horrible Palm Oil biodiesel plan). Europe (EU) is obviously pushing EVs, although only 20% of vehicles are EVs (because they did a terrible job with industrial policy and Germany will collapse if it can't sell cars), but still one of the largest importers cutting demand, and I can't imagine in the next few years Russian oil doesn't return. **There is a bitumen to diesel only plant in Alberta; that works because all the bitumen is larger than diesel and is broken down, shale oils greatest issue is it has so little diesel, shale oil is why diesel prices are no longer cheaper than gasoline and propane is dirt cheap. And I've seen several refineries being turned into biodeisel (which I hate), but that does mean more supply for diesel, although is also a substitute.
1
@timmygoldstein I agree Germany should not have gone off nuclear, and I don't know about power in Germany as I do shale, but I believe you are misrepresenting the success of renewables. Russian Natural Gas was cut off, forcing the return to coal. German and European wind and solar have continued to grow over this time, and German coal use dropped over 20% this year, 2 years after being entirely cut off from like 3/4 of Gas supply. This was a failure of strategic policy, one so obvious Trump was against Nord steam. This was not a failure of renewables.
1
@mignik01 infrastructure like Pipelines (which I obviously in some cases support) is expected to operate over decades, so even if technology is not yet commercialized, you do have to consider the likely your infrastructure becoming unnecessary.
1
@mignik01 I think you understand how far material science has developed in the last 5 years and how it is improving.
1
@mignik01 make progress you say as half of Chinese cars sales are EVs.
1
@mignik01 LNG is another fuel that might become common in long haul truck. But I agree with that point, where we disagree is I think it is myopic to only believe that things that have been commercialized can be.
1
@mignik01 they truck LNG from BC to Inuvik on the Artic Ocean. It's very easy to store. And Natural Gas is very cheap throughout the US interior, so much so that I think it's entirely reasonable to think a small LNG facilities can distribute across the US. Diesel is only going to keep getting more expensive, the dropping gasoline demand reduces the availability of other refinery products.
1
@mignik01 USA gasoline demand was declining the entirety of the 2000s and is still well below Covid levels. Between ethanol, higher fuel efficiency, EVs, and fewer miles drive it's pretty flat at best. LNG is also a liquid. You just have to keep it in a Thermos tank. But it's not difficult to maintain they ship it over seas.
1
@mignik01 You can't though. Legally there are lots of regulations on storing diesel. For 4 years before Covid, it was flat. That was under the newly elected president. There's no reason to think it's going to go past that level, and it's only recovered half it's drop in the 3 years since Covid was relevant. Refinery Capacity is also still below Covid. Implying a lack of long term demand on the opinion of investors.
1
@mignik01 it doesn't matter why, both have a considerable cost, but LNG is not difficult to store. I do not believe it will return to the 2018 high. Work from home in particular is a huge cut to miles driven. All predictions are for decline by 2030, and there is no evidence a growth trend.
1
@mignik01 The record-high level of finished motor gasoline consumption was about 392 million gallons per day in 2018, that's straight from the IEA. I think your quoting petroleum product consumption which is not at all the conversation. Maybe if you looked at the right chart.
1
@mignik01 I said gasoline demand is dropping. You said "you say demand is dropping. I see no evidence". You have to look at specific usage, because oil divides into different products, and so a loss of one product market effects all markets.
1
@mignik01 you can't just look at oil consumption to say you understand a trend, you need to look at the first derivative to make any comments about future rates of growth. Through the 2010s everyone expected US gas demand to sky rocket up, instead it's plateaued for two decades and is expected to fall in the future. Chinese oil imports are expected to drop in 2025 or 2026, and again the rate of growth has already collapsed. If gasoline demand collapses, other uses for oil also have to decrease, because a barrel of oil is a mix of products. Some of that gasoline might be able to shift to diesel, but only a small percentage. More of it will be able to shift to petrochemicals. But as we already established, petrochemicals are only 10% of demand, so the difficulty will be absorbing the half of demand gas now makes up. Which gets us to that 50% of demand to Petro chemicals point. Either oil demand will continue to drop, or Saudis and OPEC will flood the market and kill North American production.
1
@mignik01 the evidence repeated put forward is continuously decreasing EV and battery cost, which your saying is about to dramatically end with no evidence yourself and against investor sentiment, direct national policies by the two largest Oil importers in the world to cut consumption, with the largest already selling half of new vehicles as EVs, and a decrease in US gasoline consumption, even prior to covid, including declines in refining capacity and gas stations showing a lack of investor belief in demand. I have been clear. I'm not suggesting the end of oil. But over the next 25 years, the vast majority of urban vehicles will move to being electric, which will create a glut of gasoline, which will create price pressures on other refined products that cause decreasing demand- excluding petrochemicals, because Gasoline can be fractured to increase supply.
1
@mignik01 not for Gasoline usgae over the last 5 years, or ten years, or 20 years, which I have been repeatedly clear was the point of conversation. If gasoline demand decreases, then decreases must follow for other refined products.
1
@mignik01 no, it doesn't. Energy changes usually grow exponentially, not linearly
1
Elaborate?
1