Global Petroleum Share Discussion Threads

[jimarilo] 14/6/2021 02:38

8th December 2020 - 28th May 2021 ...........The vax that just keeps giving Rustler @TheRustler83 · 6h 3,752 people have died in Scotland, within 28 days of a vaxxine 1,289 deaths after #Pfizer 2,461 deaths after #AstraZeneca Scotland is 1/12th UK population. A quick estimate puts the entire U.K. figure around 50,000 Source: Public Health Scotland https://twitter.com/TheRustler83/status/1404158423030190081

[jimarilo] 13/6/2021 17:51

Another mug punter......This geezer and anyone else that took the shot poison, should be more concerned about "Pathogenic Priming" Ethan Ennals @EnnalsEthan I'll be watching the England match on my own today thanks to a text from NHS Test and Trace... Despite 2 jabs and 2 negative tests, I have to isolate for 10 days because I was in the vicinity of someone with Covid. Is this really necessary? Scientists are divided. https://twitter.com/EnnalsEthan/status/1404017604952461314

[emptyend] 12/6/2021 14:21

I've been walking around London this week. It is empty. Never been so unspoiled by humanity in 100 years......

[jimarilo] 12/6/2021 06:02

https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/what-the-hell-are-they-spraying-on-us/

[swanvesta] 10/6/2021 16:06

Hyper Al, you're the one that came here making claims, I'm only (politely) asking you to explain them properly. The prevailing wisdom is that the main CO2 cost with cars of any type is in the sunk cost of manufacture, so that's why I'm quizzing you. I don't have anything against solar - I think the tech will keep improving, and I like the idea of having solar panels at home combined with a battery backup (which might as well be an EV.) The only problem I still see is that to replace the entirety of fossil fuel demand, including heating/cooling and industrial consumption will require a huge land area, and that doesn't seem particularly environmentally friendly. Hence I favour nuclear at the moment, but I'm willing to change my mind. I'm an investor - it makes no sense to stick my head in the sand.

[hyper al] 10/6/2021 15:39

I have given loads of data. You supply me with the CO2 burden calculations for the exploration and production of 1 litre of oil and how you calculated it, and maybe I will put some effort into solar panels. but remember current solar panels last 25 years, I believe they recover their CO2 manufacturing footprint within 3 years of use. If you really think oil/gas can compete with that, you need to go back to school. Why else do you think the planet is getting coated in solar panels?! Low CO2 footprint and cheap energy, goodbye oil and gas. Oil is not renewable it's a bloody poison that we must stop burning. These oil companies will be appearing in court in the future if they keep doing this! just like the tobacco industry.

[swanvesta] 10/6/2021 15:28

Then you need to include the CO2 cost of your solar panels. If you want a proper end to end comparison you have to include everything, as I see you are willing to do for petrol vehicles. If a proper comparison comes out in your favour great, but you haven't done that yet. Some of the best estimates from green promoters is that EVs save 30% CO2 overall. And it will take 20 years to realise the whole of that saving. Meanwhile, life has to go on.

[swanvesta] 10/6/2021 14:13

"...the battery, as the statistics show, saves the burning of all that petrol." But what about the energy that goes into charging that battery? It has to be charged 200 times or more to travel 89000km. Hence I am asking you to compare like with like. But you're shutting me down, with one of the worst bad faith excuses I've seen for a long time.

[hyper al] 10/6/2021 13:28

10 Jun '21 - 11:50 - 8828 of 8828 0 1 0 Hyper Al, as far as I can see you're comparing running emissions for a petrol car with embedded emissions for a 40kWh battery. That is correct. And the battery gets recycled at end of use, unlike petrol. Obviously the EV has higher embedded emissions if you include the battery, but the battery, as the statistics show, saves the burning of all that petrol. You know very well what I am saying is fact and makes sense, you just don't want to accept it. That's your choice.I suggest you use your brain before suggesting others are wrong! I'm not going to waste my time convincing a sceptic who can find all the info required online with little effort.

[swanvesta] 10/6/2021 11:50

Hyper Al, as far as I can see you're comparing running emissions for a petrol car with embedded emissions for a 40kWh battery. So you're coming up with a scrambled mess. Please try again, this time including both embedded emissions and running emissions for both EVs and petrol cars. "Petrol cars are also more complex to produce so will have a higher embodied CO2 for production than an Electric vehicle." Please back that up. Your first link clearly suggests (and I haven't heard contradictory evidence yet) that EVs have higher embedded emissions than conventional cars.

[hyper al] 10/6/2021 09:26

EV's are still not ideal. People need to car share more (not easy with Covid) use public transport or just reduce travel (like work from home). Driverless cars will probably become the norm. The cars heads out in the evening to charge at the local charge point and picks up passengers at set times or when called via an app.

[hyper al] 10/6/2021 09:19

emptyend You asked, so here are the details explaining how EV's produce less CO2 using the worse case scenario for the EV "Of this reason the results are also widely different with a climate impact ranging from 39 kg CO2e/kWh to 196 kg CO2e/kWh. If 1an electric vehicle is using a 40 kWh battery its embedded emissions from manufacturing would then be equivalent to the CO2 emissions caused by driving a diesel car with a fuel consumption of 5 litre per 100 km in between 11,800 km and 89,400 km before the electric car even has driven one meter." hTTps://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2019_11_Analysis_CO2_footprint_lithium-ion_batteries.pdf I use the above as a worse case example. Total idiots who wrote the above with comment "before the electric car even has driven one meter", probably funded by the oil industry, but even so I will use their figures. By the time the electric car has done 89,400km (questionable very worse case scenario from above report) a petrol car will have burnt 1,788 gallons of petrol assuming 50 miles per gallon. 4.546092 litres to a gallon, so say 8,128 litres of fuel. 1 litre of fuel produces 2.600kg of CO2 when produced/burnt (see hTTps://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/fthr/biomass-energy-resources/reference-biomass/facts-figures/carbon-emissions-of-different-fuels/ diesel is 3.128) so for the petrol car to travel 89,400km 21,132kg of CO2 was produced while the 40kwh EV produce 40x196 = 7,840kg So a petrol car produces 3x the amount of CO2 when compared to a 40kwh EV. This is assuming the absolute worse case figures for EV CO2 emissions at 196 kg CO2e/kWh, the reality is they are probably about a 3rd of that, or less, so a petrol produces 9x more CO2 Petrol cars are also more complex to produce so will have a higher embodied CO2 for production than an Electric vehicle.

[swanvesta] 09/6/2021 08:24

Hyper Al, that's a strawman if ever I saw one. If CO2 targets are going to be met the world needs to take note of the paper's more detailed observations. That's where "deviation from the norm" has to start.

[emptyend] 09/6/2021 07:41

....so batteries then.....and the full CO2 cost to produce them is....err....what exactly????

[hyper al] 08/6/2021 09:52

emptyend Rubbish, and you know it, my car is charged by my Solar panels for a large chunk of the year! and in my part of the national grid all the energy comes from wind turbines and nuclear, so zero CO2 emissions even when the sun is not out.

[swanvesta] 04/6/2021 21:34

Hyper Al, what do you make of the gorozen research then? I find it quite compelling. For example: Https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-fuzzy-math-behind-carbon-emission-projections

[emptyend] 04/6/2021 20:17

You can't fuel transport with solar and wind, sonny....

[hyper al] 04/6/2021 18:08

swanvesta Oil backed energy ministers would mock, but the reality is economics will always win, If these oil/gas producers can produce oil at $10 a barrel, then maybe they can compete with renewables. Well China has a big chunk of the global population. They expect 50% 0f car sales to be Ev's by 2035. hTTps://www.schroders.com/en/uk/private-investor/insights/markets/why-chinas-electric-vehicle-market-is-at-full-throttle/ Personally I think EV's will behave the same as other destructive tech and takeover ICE cars far faster as cheaper models become available and simple economics that Electric fuel is cheaper than petrol becomes recognised. Developing countries have very poor electricity grids so it wont take long before you see solar powering electric vehicles at a local level. India this is happening now emptyend You are the delusional one. If you can, show me the calculations that support your comment. Remember all the transport costs of oil, the refining costs, once burnt it's gone. Why would any government import oil endlessly? when some solar panels will produce the same energy over and over for 25 years without the burden on their economy feeding the oil/gas industry. Not even politicians are that stupid, unless maybe some are getting a bit money in their back pocket. Solar panels are so cheap now and large wind turbines produce energy at even less, no way can oil compete. oil producing nations know that.

[emptyend] 04/6/2021 14:40

Delusional nonsense. EVs are vastly overhyped (hence your name, I imagine) and the full cycle environmental costs are hidden from the sheep who rush out to "do their bit for the environment".The future will be hydrogen - but oil will be needed for many decades yet....

[swanvesta] 04/6/2021 10:34

I had assumed everyone interested in the oil sector would be aware of SA's reaction to IEA's call. This is what I was referring to: Https://www.worldoil.com/news/2021/6/3/opec-leaders-mock-iea-s-la-la-land-2050-net-zero-roadmap I completely agree EVs are the way to go. But such a massive transfer can't and won't happen in the timescales envisioned. Esp not if you take into account the developing world ie the vast majority of global population.