Baaken fields are supposedly breakeven around 60. If oil prices go up by another 10 or so, some Baaken fields will get active again.

Their problem is Texas found ore oil and gas than expected, has lower breakeven points, and is closer to refineries so unless there is a supply shock (think middle eastern wars), oil prices are pretty capped to around 60 (US) I think with only temporary spikes above before more drills come online to push prices down.

Um, every sell side shop? EIA also saying production was 12mm in Jan. So yeah, pretty easy to see 13.5mm by December, or greater

given that almost no one saw peak oil ending...... yes, a few people saw the possiblity of it ending in theoretical terms........

as an aside, i think lots of people thought too many people were yelling about peak oil like nothing could ever change. jeff rubin (who i like) for example was screaming about peak oil. now he's screaming about oil staying very low forever.

now my question is this: is there anything that can make oil a great investment in the long-term?

on the supply side: i think there's an idea that there will be "peak USA oil" but my sense is it keeps getting pushed back... venezuela, iran, (iraq?) are all below their capacity. can other countries be pushed below?

on the demand side: i can't see major secular changes here beyond the eventual gentle annual decline in oil use.

Just to be clear, "peak oil" as Jiggs means it (and I have no idea how its interpreted elsewhere) isn't about peak oil purely from a production point of view. It's about the ramifications and societal impact.

I don't think anybody denies there is a finite amount of oil on this planet and that at some point in time there will be a maximum amount of oil we extract per day/year/whatever. The very high level counter to peak oil isn't that we'll always be able to get more and more. It's that we'll constantly get smarter* about how we extract oil and so more and more of it will become available for our potential use AND that humans are a pretty innovative species and with the right incentives other energy sources will be developed and we'll figure out ways to do more with less energy. The decrease in energy from oil won't result in societal collapse.





* In the very limited sense, obviously we're pretty stupid when it comes to things like climate change and the actual effects of what we're doing.

On the contrary, the current way we deal with climate change (in effect ignoring it in how we practically act) is the highly intelligent option.

The only stupid action as relates to climate change has been attempts to reduce emissions in Western countries. These attempts have:

- Greatly increased global emissions
- Hurt the poor
- Done large amounts of needless environmental damage
- Given power to an evil dictatorship who's as dangerous as Nazi Germany in 1933.

These attempts were always going to do all of the above and hence were unforgivably stupid and damaging. The Paris Agreement and prior agreements were the greatest acts of environmental vandalism in history and caused a large needless increase in CO2 emissions and other needless environmental damage.

So yeah, there's stupidity here, but not where you think.

Cool story bro.

Every point on my list is a fact. Do you deny the science, bro?

Mitigation attempts have been extremely harmful to the cause of lowering CO2 emissions (instead greatly increasing it globally while marginally lowering it locally) and extremely harmful to the environment.

Oil will become useless/niche before we even come close to running out of it.

Just like coal.

Lol. I know your game and have no desire to discuss anything with you because you're a zealot that is good at internet arguing. It's not worth the effort and I've pointed this out before. Feel free to take your comment to Politics and let people that are happy wasting their time on you do their thing.

I mean, notice how you made some really dumb statements about airplane autopilots in the TSLA thread a couple of days ago (as always, being totally over confident in your ignorance) and then just slunk away after it was clear you didn't know what you were talking about. That's your thing.

Yes, exactly.

Edit: I didn't mean to imply that our peak extraction would correspond to the difficulties of the physical act of extracting the oil.

effectively, we will never run out of oil........ if peak oil (no new major production sources) had proven correct, the price would have risen so much that eventually you'd have a big drop in demand and/or the governments would have started rationing it. i'm talking 15 years beyond peak oil

i don't think oil will go the way of coal. there is no good substitute for it whereas there was for coal. coal and oil effectively have different uses even they seem similar.

one of the top oil researchers in the world (vaclav smil - a favourite of bill gates) was willing a few years ago to take pretty much any reasonable OVER bet on oil usage in the future.

Batteries are coming for oil very quickly on true fronts: motor vehicle transportation (half of US demand for oil) and home heating (1/6th of US demand). Cars and homes will become cheaper to fuel by electricity than oil, and oil demand will collapse. Whether it happens in the next 10 years or it takes another 20 years, it is absolutely going to happen.

The time horizon for oil is obviously longer on stuff like jet fuel and plastics, etc.

Batteries are complements to every source of energy that doesn’t flex well with demand.

People associate this with renewables but traditional “baseload” power sources like nuclear, oil, and coal also benefit greatly from batteries.

That's actually a big problem with increasing storage on the grid to make renewables more feasible, it perversely makes coal much more economical. Switches it from a low margin baseload plant to a high margin virtual peaking plant.

I am thinking more in terms of nuclear (with other sources where environmental factors are favorable)+battery is the only viable way we even get close to IPCC recommendations on GHG within 20 years.

Oh yeah, I totally agree. I was just pointing out that adding storage without additional regulations won't aid in the transition from coal. Quite the opposite. And the Green New Dream folks wanting to close nuke plants down while trying to get to zero emissions in twelve years is total lunacy. If you want to get even close to that goal you need to build hundreds and hundreds of new reactors. It's the only way.

Solar power is absurdly cheap when it's actually generating vs all other forms of power. Batteries are good for other types of power, but given the fact that solar's only real limitation is the fact that it only works a fraction of the day solar stands to gain much more from cheap batteries than any other form of power production.

Still going to need huge amounts of nuclear, wind, hydro, and eventually geothermal to get where we need to go... but Solar is probably going to be well north of 50% of total power generation when all is said and done.

The next breakthrough in batteries will be here far sooner than ppl think.

I am personally good friends with the CEO of a battery startup who is in the middle of a 25m PE raise at a 100m pre-market valuation. (And yes, invested heavily) There has been a lot of claims in battery news basically for 10 years, but they have, at this very moment, proven, tested batteries with a totally new chemistry that is able to be systematically replicated. We're talking about overnight battery power and longevity doubling and tripling. And no dendrite formation, 100% safe at higher temperatures.

They own all the IP behind the following studies from Rice University:
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-red-dr...ries-safe.html
https://phys.org/news/2018-10-nanotu...batteries.html
https://science.slashdot.org/story/1...ng-by-20-times
Check out all the stuff coming out of Rice, creators of the Bucky Ball. They own all the battery IP published so far from Rice I believe. It's really amazing stuff.

They literally a have factory right now and are waiting for the raise to finish to set up the assembly line.

If anyone wants more info message me and I'll forward their Investment Summary.

P.S. I know this isn't the correct forum but can a mod help me get my old SN back? I forgot the password after years of not posting here post BF. I sent an email asking for help and never got a response.

Thanks. Feel free to transfer this to the correct forum.

In case it wasn't clear from my post, I think everyone should expect far far superior commercially available batteries within 18 months-4 years.

For the past 25 years, the greatest battery improvements have been from incrementally shrinking batteries sizes. Chemistry improvements unlock massive new improvements.

No man, just no. This is a great way to set money on fire.
The bolded means they have precisely jack **** of any worth.

There are literally dozens of battery technologies in development and preproduction that smoke the current battery lineup (and even smoke your good friend's tepid claimed improvements). They all come down to a question of:

- Reliability
- Life
- Manufacturing cost
- Scalability

For example, Toyota have solid state batteries entering production now that smoke anything that currently exist.

The above criteria are decided in multi billion dollar research pushes, not because you "have, at this very moment, proven, tested batteries with a totally new chemistry that is able to be systematically replicated". That's completely meaningless. I can buy what you've described your friend has for $50 and a packet of cigarettes.

Lol - I'm going to try hard to not derail this into another truthsayer vs the world derail.

I agree - words in a 2+2 thread are pretty meaningless. It's all about battery testing results and ability to mass produce in a cost effective way.

Instead of just flaming away without having a clue about the actual science you are trying to talk about, how about this - you or anyone else here can send me ANY publically or privately available battery results that you think are "far" superior in energy density, full battery specific capacity, or anode and cathode effectiveness than the company I'm talking about and I'll send you $50. (Caveat - those results need to be something that it's even remotely possible to mass produce this decade.)


Message me for details.


Does anyone else here actually have experience investing in the battery space?


P.S. I know how to use google, so make it good!

You already derailed into shameless self-interested spam:
Derailing this into a Truthsayer vs the Dickhead Spammer would be an improvement.

This isn't a genuine offer of $50.

I absolutely love that this "investment opportunity" is claimed to be superior on all these points, ready to manufacture (despite having none of the billions of dollars needed to even test it), yet needs mere millions in a funding round.

You can't even figure how to get your old screen name back without spamming a thread (if you ever had one), yet you're claiming to be clued in on the cutting edge of battery tech which is ready to manufacture despite having no money?

Your friend (if he even exists) is the CEO of bending you over. This whole thing screams dumbo going to the fish markets.
No but we have lots of lots of experience with worthless dickhead spammers (or investing fish getting taken by conmen). IMO it's >99.9% your SPAM is just that and NOT a massive breakthrough that's being spammed on a poker forum because the results are SO GOOD you have to spam a poker forum for pittance capital.

Whatever man, I was responding to someone else in the thread.

The $50 bucks is a legit offer for anyone else except this dick.

Apparently, you think testing batteries or even a very small scale pilot production requires a 25m raise. lol. (Did you even click the links btw?)

And what I meant by listing those specific points is to get a sense of the battery on a whole. I don't claim there isn't another company with a single metric that could be superior.

You know, next time you could just say, "I need scientific proof, statistics, numbers, and a reasonable business plan before I believe anything you say." That would actually be effective and generate meaningful conversation. Instead, you chose to just act like a douchebag. Go back to attacking your usual enemies and leave me out of it.

Sadly, someone on here may have had something meaningful to contribute to the convo. Instead this is a convo about you vs the spammer/fool, so why would they waste their time posting. Thanks for ruining another topic!

Lol, I would like to thank TS for tilting me so much that I finally spent the time to find my old yahoo mail password after closer to a decade off of it. I am "Iamanadultnow." I think I was on 2+2 before you were!

Shout out to any of my old high school friends who are reading this!

Consider derail completed! [And yes, the $50 offer still stands. ]