Comments by "Neolithic Transit Revolution" (@neolithictransitrevolution427) on "How America Became the World’s #1 Oil Producer" video.

  1. Alaska is actually a very small producer in the modern oil economy, mainly only effecting Californias market and the Pacific coast, and mainly doing it just through Washington state refineries.
    107
  2. The actual and sensible alternative to US energy independence is KeyStone LX or a similar pipeline bringing Canadian oil south to the Gulf of Mexico so that a reliable supply (unlike sanctioned Russia or Venezuela or unreliable Mexico) of heavy crude is available to Gulf refineries. I am all for the energy transition. There is really no way Solar won't become the dominant source of electricity over the next decade, which is great. NG will likely be needed in that time, but not in the evening or for load following, which will be done with batteries. It will be needed overnight and seasonally for cloudy periods, where storage is further off. And EVs are going to take over a large chunk of Transportation. But oil won't stop being used for decades, and in that time a secure supply is to the US's advantage.
    46
  3. I don't believe you are looking at this with enough granularity. You talk about the realities of infrastructure and crude characteristics, but then seem to ignore this by the conclusion. There is frankly no way to look at the Midwest and Rockies without them being import dependent - dependent on Canada, sure, and with legal protection and a near monopsony due to pipelines, but more than half the oil consumed is still imported in these regions. California as well simply can't be viewed as anything but energy dependent. The refineries need a heavy crude, there is no pipeline capacity with the continent, and again we see growing Canadian fractions but I say energy independence is to ignore reality. We can only say the US south, from Permian shale and Offshore, is an actual net surplus. And it's an enormous surplus, no doubt. But you can't look at a basement full of people drowning and an 11th floor of people dying of thirst and say there seems to be no issues with water access. Not only is there no way to move Permian shale throughout the country, but it's the wrong "flavor" for almost all the infrastructure it's near. A hypothetical refinery has a pipe a meter in diameter with oil flowing in. Let's say it was built for heavy oil, the oil enters the distillation chamber and is seperated into components according to the size of molecules. The really light molecules, 1-3 carbons (methane, ethane, propane) exit out a 1 inch pipe at the top, another 1inch pipe for butane, a 2 foot diameter pipe for gasoline which is a mix ~10 carbon long molecules, a foot diameter for diesel which is heavier, and then some real heavy stuff out the bottom. And that all works because I know the oil coming in has ratios that break up to fit the pipes going out. If you decide to try and switch that input oil to something light, you have to reduce the amount of oil you're processing, because the fractions have changed. Suddenly that 1 inch pipe at the top is completely full, even though the gasoline take away pipe is half full, and the Diesel is near empty. And shale oil IS light, super light, sometimes even called ultralight. In some cases it's comparable to that 1 inch pipes output, or condensate, or NGL liquids. Which is a huge problem, because that shale oil requires an enormous amount of diesel to access, but gives very little back. You cannot run the US economy on shale oil, I might be able to fill my car, but construction vehicles? Transport trucks? Farm Tractors? Ships, trains, fire trucks etc? That's why we saw Diesel prices skyrocketing after Russia invaded Ukraine. And US refineries, most relevant for this discussion in the Gulf but also in Chicago and California, are built for the heaviest possible oil. Talking about replacing imports with shale oil isn't just getting less diesel out of a barrel, it's talking about using that 1 meter input pipe at half capacity, because your methane outtake and gasoline outtake are full at that point. But, as bad as all that, most of the wasted equipment is related to the really heavy sludge at the bottom. US refineries are the most advanced and expensive, because they have the equipment to upgrade that sludge into something more like regular oil. Gulf refineries actually buy the sludge from other countries refineries, that used to include Russia's. All that equipment goes completely unused is you try to force shale to be used. Which is going to add to gas prices, because those refineries compete by buying cheap oil to make up for their high cost, and shale oil has just about the highest production cost in the world, only beat by strip mining bitumen in Fort McMurray. *All numbers should be taken as examples and not literally.
    39
  4. I think leaving our the fact shale oil has never been profitable from a video is akin to posting misinformation. Like I get drumming up business and the second video concept, but in this case you are leaving our that Shale plays have never made a return. And with the average barrel getting light and gassier, and well productivity dropping, that's a worsening issue. NG prices are rock bottom already. Without knowing this or seeing the draw down in DUCs (drilled but uncompleted wells) or decrease in the drilling rig count, you would think that shale oil is a replacement for oil security. But it isn't, it's a very limited resource that only has a few more years of activity before collapse.
    21
  5. I don't think there will be a very large market for shale in 30 years. It's already running out, it's getting lighter every year and is already to light to refine without mixing. And frankly, in 30 years oil demand will be so much lower the cost of fracking won't make sense.
    16
  6.  @Ray_of_Light62  I agree, but I think oil production from shale will. Shale fracturing for NG will be a long term industry. But Shale oil is a temporary side effect. We can see the Bakken, the first shale plays, is decreasing output annually. Same with Eagle Ford. And the average well productivity in the Permian is declining. "Shale oil" used to refer to using oil shale, and things like the Permian were called "light, tight oil" because it is light, and it's in tight rock formations. The tighter the formation, the lighter the hydrocarbons. The first wells are drilled in the easiest, most productive locations, which have the least tight formation, and therefore the "heaviest" (in quotes because it's still very, very light) oils. As time has gone by, wells in the Permian are shifting to less ideal sites (tighter), and getting lighter, and therefore gassier. So each barrel of oil is actually half a barrel of oil and half a barrel of NG, when it used to be 75/25. And the half that is oil is still getting lighter, more butane and less gasoline. The big issue here is all the pumps run on diesel. But the light shale oil has a smaller fraction of the heavier hydrocarbons, notably those that make diesel. A barrel of Brent (global standard) produces more than twice the diesel you get refining WTI (the oil from the Permian). So even for NG fracking, I think we will need to commercialize a technology to use wet CNG from nearby wellhead to run the pumps, which I've seen in development. The diesel to NG equation just doesn't work. But shale oil has never really worked. Because OPEC exists, and keeps prices at a low enough level for the fracking industry to just barely cover expenses. And if OPEC didn't exist, oil would be so cheap that it never would have made sense.
    5
  7. @mignik01  So first, I quite clearly said oil would remain needed for decades for both an energy source and petrochemicals. But nowhere near a quarter of oil is used as petrochemical feed stock. Naphtha is the main feed stock and it's like a tenth of a barrel. By 2050 I'd expect US oil demand to still be a third of what it is today, mainly gasoline being displaced along side a drop in Diesel from some rail and trucking electrification and a drop in fracking which uses large amounts. Maybe that gets replaced by biofuels but I genuinely hope not. But obviously I disagree on the point of solar for Electrical generation. Solar has increased 8 fold over the last decade, even halving that growth rate and it's the majority over the next. And the amount of manufacturing for solar has grown enormously and continues to grow. Look at China's build out of solar. Incredibly and historically rapid. The price solar can be produced for shows a clear market superiority that even Texas embraces. Again, I think existing NG plants used for peaking will be repurposed for combined cycle use to increase capacity and be heavily used over night. I don't think 24 hour storage will be common until 2040. But 2-4 hour storage for use in the evening is already commercialized and growing. And I think Solar with storage that keeps output generally stable through the day, will continue it's rapid growth. I have nothing against nuclear. I think SMRs could be a key part of the energy make up, even large power plants in some large regions. I think industrial heat would likely be best served by SMRs, the Oil sands in Canada, even shipping could be transitioned to SMRs. But in terms of electrical production, excluding certain highly dense Urban regions or particularly cloudy geographies, I don't believe nuclear can compete with solar.
    5
  8.  @chaitanyatyagi  not really. Venezuelan imports were actually good for the shale industry because oil produced from shale formations is very light and needs to be mixed with heavy crude. A great irony is 20-30 years ago when all the big refineries were built we were sure there would be no light oil and to much heavy, and instead the world today is desperate for heavy oil to mix with all the light stuff. But shale oil is largely exported because the Permian is right near a coast and the light hydrocarbons are more useful internationally to blend than domestically to refine in refineries built for the heaviest of grades. Actually, the amount of diesel used in fracking, more Venezuelan imports would lower the cost of Diesel and make fracking cheaper.
    5
  9.  @jonadabtheunsightly  my mistake, although still good to know that Alaska really only ever sold oil to California, and this was the period California was going from the largest producer state to a long decline.
    4
  10.  @Nick-gj6je  no he even mentioned this at the end of the video, investors were not making back money over that last decade. That's why post Covid we saw such refusal to reinvest as high prices finally let share holders cash out. It's the same reason we've see such high consolidation in the last few years.
    4
  11. @mignik01  I guess by default I have to agree the share of oil going to petrochemicals will increase since I think the share going to fuel will go down. But I think that 55% number is many because the IEA also sees a global decrease in demand by 2030. And I have to say that 12% is a lot closer to my claim of around 10%. The point to remember is Petrochemical feed stock is generally the lighter end of hydrocarbons. So shale oil from the US, it might actually be nearly half a barrel. Because you can put those small molecules together to make polymers. But you can't just use the entire barrel that way, the heavier end that goes into gas and diesel and jet fuel, until you get back to the really heavy stuff where you make lubricant and carbon fibers. I think short haul trucking will likely be electrified. I agree long haul trucking will remain Diesel. I don't think physics really has much to do with it. I think the shear economy of scale is what is most relevant now. Even without efficiency improvements, the module nature means manufacturering millions of panels and installing millions. The same is true for batteries. These aren't technically complex items. And the manufacturing is growing in the US, in China, and in India and Europe. Look at China, they could built their entire grids worth of capacity in about 5 years. That's just unparalleled. And the US is following suit to avoid being caught with the more expensive energy. Even without improvement solar is the cheapest cost of energy. Again, it costs less than nuclear. That's just the reality. No one is even pretending to have a nuclear power generation system in the range of solar. Sure, nuclear is "denser". And? Roof top solar destructively competes with any utility delivered power, if half a block has solar and a battery, the other half doubles all their transmission and distribution fees, which are already the majority of cost. Solar is highly reliable. The sun rises daily. Utility projects in Texas or the West or south California are in regions where you might have a half dozen clouds for half the year. And solar still works with clouds, just less. And, AC demand is a huge portion of consumer demand, and fits perfectly with solar. Some days you will have lower solar. On those days NG will be run. But you don't run a nuclear plant at night and occasionally, and nuclear doesn't compete in the day. Again, nuclear for process heat with co-generation makes a lot of sense for industrial clusters. Nuclear might make more sense in New York and the surrounding area with an enormous density of people and more regular cloudy conditions. But across the majority of the majority of regions, solar wins. I think it's one of the greater ironies that the US north East and Europe were the two areas to first push solar, when they are likely the two areas worse suited to it. But regardless. No one is building nuclear right now. Not anywhere near the scale of solar. Even if you're right, solar will have won before Nuclear gets to the starting line. And nuclear only works when you have large amounts of unmet demand. If a region has electricity you can't just add a GW of power. That said, my belief is that nuclear is a big part of China's plan. Everyone is always talking about them building coal, but you have to note their coal plants are much more advanced than the ones built in North America or Europe 30 years ago. Anything built in the last 10 years is super or ultra critical. And I think they are working on SMRs so in the 2030s they can rip out the boilers of these coal plants and plug the nuclear reactors in.
    4
  12. Um, it kinda does. I mean it's not completely empty, there are rocks in there. But you can pretty much stick a straw in the ground and oil comes out in some places.
    4
  13.  @genethebean7597  I do agree with the idea that we shouldn't be using oil as a fuel to aggressively in favor of longer term fees stock, though.
    3
  14.  @lolicantthinkofabettername3437  Yaya I'm sure context makes it pretty clear you're meant to hear it as exactly 1 million and 1 half gallons. It's a very precise thing.
    3
  15.  @alexanderthurber4257  I like this phrasing "peak energy return on investment". Although I'd say more of what is driving the issue you mention is loss of manufacturering, US still has very cheap energy, but other countries willing to trash their environment are hard to compete with. I'd also say the type of energy matters a lot. Big issue with Fracking is you need a lot of Diesel to produce a very light oil that may be a net loss of diesel. The Oil Sands also have a lower EROI, but I don't think anyone would care if, instead of burning natural gas for steam, you stuck a nuclear generator at the largest sites.
    3
  16. Honestly, we have been and are.
    2
  17.  @kapoioBCS  Solar grows at a far higher rate than shale oil output.
    2
  18.  @heinzaballoo3278  we'll switch to renewables certainly, I'll be surprised if Solar isn't the main source of energy on the US by 2035, aside from wind and hydro and NG. And EVs will increase. But I don't think we will end demand for oil for decades. It will certainly drop sharply. But there will remain a long distance trucking sector and trains etc that use diesel. And it's also needed as a petrochemical feed stock.
    2
  19. Chinese coal on the better end is probably comparable to US NG on the worse end because their plants are quite a bit more efficient. That said, I still support US production of NG from fracking for supplying LNG exports. But methane leaks need better regulation and enforcement, and one of these easier things that need to be is electrifying the turbines that move gas through pipelines. Not only is burning NG to power those wasteful, is a point of high leakage..
    2
  20.  @PaulCDehlinger  no one is claiming oil companies are not profitable, but only in the last few years have oil majors had any investment in shale. The idea comes from the fact that revenues have not been providing competitive return on capital. Let me point out that if shale had been profitable over the last decade, Exon and friends would have been buying into earlier.
    2
  21. Shale oil is dead. The growth we've seen in US output was entirely temporary. The Bakken and Eagle Ford have already passed peak production. In the Permian per well output is already dropping. Reinvestment is very low, many of the "new wells" are DUCs, drilled but uncompleted wells from below Covid being brought online. The rig fleet has halved since 2019, and again, that's while seeing declining well productivity. In your top comment you off handedly say its never made a profit and lost 10s of billions. It will never make a profit. 2022 high oil prices bailed out investors, thats why we see no reinventment. Its the marginal producer against a cabal, fracking for oil in a free market will always expand until reaching its production cost, leaving very small margins of profit even at enormous output. Shale oil basically uses heavy oil/diesel to pull very light oil out of the ground. It's very expensive. If they can use wet wellhead CNG to run the pumps, the economics improve. Because Shale oil co-produce a lot of NG. But NG prices are absurdly low, and LNG exports seem capped at this point. And as the Permian ages, average barrels are getting lighter and gassier. There is a reason Biden can point to all these unused leases - the Russian invasion of Ukraine and sanctions gave the industry a chance to exit the market without a loss it's not expanding, and by the end of 2026 the Permian will be declining and national output will be declining.
    2
  22.  @mignik01  to be fair, if that were always true, we would use trains and long distance trucking wouldn't exist to begin with.
    2
  23.  @kzazazazk  I think you and the other guy are arguing over semantics. You're quoting Proven Reserve numbers, but proven reserves refers to reserves that can be profitability extracted, not what's in the ground. If Alaska wasn't an empty frozen wilderness, and has existing infrastructure, skilled labor, and logistics chains, it would be less expensive to produce oil, which would increase the proven reserves.
    1
  24.  @kzazazazk  the other guy said that Alaska would be the biggest oil producer of people lived there. You replied by listed proven reserves. But proven reserves are impacted by the cost of labor and equipment in a region. It's not a counter point.
    1
  25. @kzazazazk  no I'm not. If you include off shore and Federal lands, there is 40-50 billion barrels. It can't legally or economically be developed, so it isn't included in proven reserves. But there is oil there. Proven reserves are based on economics of extracting the resources. When you have higher operating expenses, you're proven reserves are decreased. Edit: sorry, 23 billion barrels oil, the rest of the 50 in NG equivalent
    1
  26. @kzazazazk  I did include the estimated amounts on the shelf. You're 3 billion figure is easily sourced and clearly the proven reserves. We agree the rest is not currently economically viable; although, economically viable also includes legal restriction, and with the new government that's open to change. Again, the point of the other guy was that if Alaska had a population density anywhere near the other states average, and if that population weren't focused on the Southern most areas, the economics would be different. I don't know why you are being so aggressive and rude about this. The two of you are disagreeing about different things. He is saying that the economics are bad because Alaska has no infrastructure or, really, economy outside a pipeline. You are debating proven reserves. That's not the same as oil in the ground, which is stated by the Artic Institute, Resource development council of Alaska, and US Department of the Interior to be much higher than the 3.1 figure.
    1
  27.  @kzazazazk  Well, I'm Canadian, I have no really no care in this so this will be my last message. But Albertas population is like 7 times higher than Alaska, and centered much nearer the oil. And frankly if you were right, Obama wouldn't have had to make it illegal to drill in most of the Alaska offshore. Because no one would have. Except it is viable. But again, you are the one who objected to a hypothetical. The other posted put forward "if" Alaska had a real economy, they would produce more oil. You're right. Alaska does not have a bigger economy with more people. That's a fact. But saying "well these are the proven reserves so your hypothetical is wrong" isn't a relevant or valid argument. There is lots of oil there. Which two messages ago you denied. Clearly being right about this is weirdly important to you, it's a shame you aren't.
    1
  28. ​ @2x2is22 environmental movements can definitely have this problem but I wouldn't write off entirely.
    1
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. "Well, what kind of American are you"
    1
  32.  @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
  33. @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
  34.  @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
  35.  @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
  36.  @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
  37.  @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
  38.  @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
  39.  @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
  40.  @mignik01  I think you understand how far material science has developed in the last 5 years and how it is improving.
    1
  41. @mignik01  make progress you say as half of Chinese cars sales are EVs.
    1
  42. @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
  43. @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
  44. @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
  45. @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
  46. @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
  47. @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
  48.  @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
  49.  @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
  50. @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
  51. @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
  52. @mignik01  no, it doesn't. Energy changes usually grow exponentially, not linearly
    1
  53. Elaborate?
    1