Energy Discussion

[Hair Warrior]

Meanwhile, some unpleasant analysis from JP Morgan Chase as reported by Bloomberg.

JPMorgan Sees ‘Stratospheric’ $380 Oil on Worst-Case Russian Cut

Crazy to think that - just a couple years ago, on 20 Apr 2020 - WTI crude in Cushing, OK was briefly negative $37 a barrel. Meaning, on that infamous day, if you showed up in Cushing ready to accept deliveries in lots of 100 barrels, you could “buy” 1 oil future for -$3,763 (meaning get paid $3,763) as long as you upheld your contract to take the 100 barrels away that day.

Note, I realize WTI does not mean what naval aviators think of when they see WTI. It stands for West Texas Intermediate, which is a type of light sweet crude oil found in N. America that typically sells for 90% or so of what Brent crude sells for.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

When cost and profit enters the picture...

What happens when a company operating a nuclear reactor goes bankrupt?

Or the country experiences a revolution and the new guys are Taliban-esque in their appreciation of technology? Or are essentially an End of Days cult?



My view is that these were Black Swans which arose from the inherent complexity of the systems. Things hook to other things which hook to other things, and couple in ways that simply cannot be completely understood.

After each of these unpredicted failures we rationalized their failure as actually predictable and plugged that hole. The problem is there's lots more holes.

This is an interesting story from INL.

I had a few instructors that were part of the SL-1 incident and cleanup, it was pretty wild and everything was contained, until they started moving stuff out.

 

[ABMD]

Crazy to think that - just a couple years ago, on 20 Apr 2020 - WTI crude in Cushing, OK was briefly negative $37 a barrel. Meaning, on that infamous day, if you showed up in Cushing ready to accept deliveries in lots of 100 barrels, you could “buy” 1 oil future for -$3,763 (meaning get paid $3,763) as long as you upheld your contract to take the 100 barrels away that day.

Note, I realize WTI does not mean what naval aviators think of when they see WTI. It stands for West Texas Intermediate, which is a type of light sweet crude oil found in N. America that typically sells for 90% or so of what Brent crude sells for.

Or you were smart enough to buy a certain crude ETF on that same day, and see your investment return 500+% in 2 years.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Russia’s Gazprom tightens squeeze on gas flow to Europe​

• It added that the flow of gas, already at just 40% of capacity, would fall by another half from Wednesday.

Questions to ask are how high will gas prices in Europe go?, how will it affect industry and agriculture, not to mention energy?, and how serious will divisions get in Europe?

Russia's Gazprom tightens squeeze on gas flow to Europe

Russia's Gazprom said on Monday it was halting another turbine in the Nord Stream 1 pipeline to Germany.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Randy Daytona]

Prices for energy really jumping in Europe.

French nuclear woes stoke Europe's power prices

European power prices are surging to fresh records as France grapples with lower nuclear output, adding further pressure to wholesale energy markets already struggling with vastly lower Russian gas supply.

www.reuters.com

French nuclear woes stoke Europe's power prices​

European coal futures for 2023 hit a record high this week of $332 a tonne and carbon prices have also been at all-time highs not far off 100 euros a tonne.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Anyone else read “Fossil Future”? I picked it up recently and started reading it last night. It’s a little basic in the beginning, but Im finding myself agreeing with the author in a lot of places.

In short, his argument is that despite arguments to the contrary, Fossil fuels aren’t all bad. They are the most cost-effective energy source known to man, and they’re the only source capable of meeting the world’s needs.

He makes a compelling case that climate change has evolved into a sort of religion against anything fossil fueled. Which is ironic, since we need fossil fuels to make everything.

 

[Flash]

Anyone else read “Fossil Future”? I picked it up recently and started reading it last night. It’s a little basic in the beginning, but Im finding myself agreeing with the author in a lot of places.

In short, his argument is that despite arguments to the contrary, Fossil fuels aren’t all bad. They are the most cost-effective energy source known to man, and they’re the only source capable of meeting the world’s needs.

He makes a compelling case that climate change has evolved into a sort of religion against anything fossil fueled. Which is ironic, since we need fossil fuels to make everything.

They are the only source capable of meeting the world's energy needs because we built the current system based on using them to do just that. I don't think we are getting rid of fossil fuels any time soon but I like that we are trying to move away from them with better efficiencies, along with alternative and renewable energy sources.

 

[Hair Warrior]

Someone should re-invent the car that runs on water.

 

[sevenhelmet]

They are the only source capable of meeting the world's energy needs because we built the current system based on using them to do just that. I don't think we are getting rid of fossil fuels any time soon but I like that we are trying to move away from them with better efficiencies, along with alternative and renewable energy sources.

What other energy source is as abundant and cheap? How else could we have built the world, given the technology we had available?

I'm all about efficiencies and standards to make sure energy is used responsibly. What I don't agree with is forced scarcity, e.g. outlawing certain systems simply based on type, when the infrastructure for those systems is more proven than their replacement (replacing nat gas with electric heat is a prime example, where power grids are already stressed).

 

[wink]

So, in a very far (unimaginable) future when an enlightened USA has moved beyond fossil fuels for domestic energy production, will the government have crushed the entire fossil fuel extraction business and associated industries because they are evil, or will they be able to continue producing oil and export it to other countries?

Petroleum has lifted billions of people out of poverty conditions. Millions still in poverty require oil derived energy and products to better their lives.

 

[sevenhelmet]

So, in a very far (unimaginable) future when an enlightened USA has moved beyond fossil fuels for domestic energy production, will the government have crushed the entire fossil fuel extraction business and associated industries because they are evil, or will they be able to continue producing oil and export it to other countries?

Petroleum has lifted billions of people out of poverty conditions. Millions still in poverty require oil derived energy and products to better their lives.

Billions.

 

[GroundPounder]

Someone should re-invent the car that runs on water.

 

[Brett327]

If the demand for fossil fuels is based solely upon the needs of the developing world, one imagines that the costs of extraction in many current oil producing nations, like the US, will cause the oil companies to move on to less regulated places. I don't know if the widespread electrification of the world is an apt comparison, but I would presume that any breakthroughs in energy would spread fairly rapidly throughout most of the world.

 

[Flash]

What other energy source is as abundant and cheap? How else could we have built the world, given the technology we had available?

Hydro for one, at least where it is available. Wind and solar are catching up as well, they aren't going to replace fossil fuels yet but they already make a significant percentage of electrical generation of certain areas.

I'm all about efficiencies and standards to make sure energy is used responsibly. What I don't agree with is forced scarcity, e.g. outlawing certain systems simply based on type, when the infrastructure for those systems is more proven than their replacement (replacing nat gas with electric heat is a prime example, where power grids are already stressed).

Often government forcing the issue is the only way for certain things to happen. I think incentives like those in the 'Inflation Reduction Act' recently passed are much more preferable but sometimes government mandates are needed. Can they be mismanaged and misguided? Sure, but they aren't inherently bad.

 

[Flash]

If the demand for fossil fuels is based solely upon the needs of the developing world, one imagines that the costs of extraction in many current oil producing nations, like the US, will cause the oil companies to move on to less regulated places. I don't know if the widespread electrification of the world is an apt comparison, but I would presume that any breakthroughs in energy would spread fairly rapidly throughout most of the world.

The irony is that most of those 'less regulated' places are often more costly to do business in due to corruption, instability and ironically, a lack of regulation.