Bank Of England:- Go GREEN or Go Broke

[Mega]

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...gland-governor

Not quite sure of wot to make of ALL this SUDDEN Green Maddness.......is Peek Oil here?
Mike

[FrankL]

Re: Bank Of England:- Go GREEN or Go Broke

Maybe a crazy idea, but could the US and her allies see a reversal in friendly-foe relationship between the west and KSA and the west and Iran respectively as inevitable, and prolonged disruption in oil supply and prices as a result of this process?

It might explain the push from western governments to push for electricity-powered transport alternatives, and trying to reduce dependency on NG (even though NG is better for the environment when used for cooking and home heating than many alternatives today).

Alternative wild idea: governments may be coordinating to introduce a climate change tax on oil, rendering it uneconomical for most purposes except low-volume high-value goods such as pharmaceuticals. However I cant see this work unless a very large majority of oil-consuming countries agree to implement it, and sanction any company avoiding it who opt to produce goods in a country that refuses to implement the tax.

[Mega]

Re: Bank Of England:- Go GREEN or Go Broke

HI Frank
Its a tough one, they very well funded.....

[Mega]

Re: Bank Of England:- Go GREEN or Go Broke

Ah....................Its the BANKS!
They tried to float this turd in 2008 after the Banking Collaspe,...........So they want to sell us " Carbon Credits".......BASTARDS!

[Mega]

Re: Bank Of England:- Go GREEN or Go Broke

[Mega]

Re: Bank Of England:- Go GREEN or Go Broke

Frank
My best guess is that as I recall (might not be right) the World users 85 million barrel's a day, if the average Asian lifts his living standards to that of the Average Mexican the World needs 120 Million barrels a day..........

[FrankL]

Re: Bank Of England:- Go GREEN or Go Broke

Frank
My best guess is that as I recall (might not be right) the World users 85 million barrel's a day, if the average Asian lifts his living standards to that of the Average Mexican the World needs 120 Million barrels a day..........

Increased demand like that would cause oil prices to skyrocket, favouring investments in oil producers. Isn't that the opposite of BoE's message?

Maybe you're right and they'll try to give carbon credit trading another go to bail out their failing banks.

[GRG55]

Re: Bank Of England:- Go GREEN or Go Broke

Maybe a crazy idea, but could the US and her allies see a reversal in friendly-foe relationship between the west and RSA and the west and Iran respectively as inevitable, and prolonged disruption in oil supply and prices as a result of this process?

It might explain the push from western governments to push for electricity-powered transport alternatives, and trying to reduce dependency on NG (even though NG is better for the environment when used for cooking and home heating than many alternatives today).

Alternative wild idea: governments may be coordinating to introduce a climate change tax on oil, rendering it uneconomical for most purposes except low-volume high-value goods such as pharmaceuticals. However I cant see this work unless a very large majority of oil-consuming countries agree to implement it, and sanction any company avoiding it who opt to produce goods in a country that refuses to implement the tax.

RSA? I think you may mean KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), as RSA usually refers to the Republic of South Africa.

Climate change/carbon taxes are pure virtue signalling revenue generators. None of them are anywhere near high enough to make any difference in global carbon emissions. Jurisdictions like British Columbia, which has had a carbon tax for some time, are witnessing increasing carbon emissions due to population growth. Canada's Federal carbon tax falls into the same category - high enough to be an irritant, not high enough to make any material difference in national or global emissions.

Natural gas is the only currently practical large scale substitute fuel for liquid hydrocarbons and coal that might actually make a real difference in global carbon emissions in the next couple of decades.

What I am watching is whether the multi-national oil companies will become the "next tobacco companies". It's politically expedient to blame (and even threaten to sue) the oil explorers/producers, even though the majority of the carbon emissions occur at the point of consumption.

However, in this age of social media, facts are trumped by emotion, and our world would not appear to be burdened with an over abundance of critical thinking at this moment in history. People who think coal, petroleum and natural gas can be quickly replaced with something renewable and carbon free have no idea (or are in denial) how radical, and completely unacceptable, the change in behaviour and standard of living has to be.

Instead, a strategy wherein heavily indebted democratic nation governments organize to strip the majority of the economic rent from petroleum production (a still legal substance), in a matter similar to what they did to the tobacco companies, stating it a necessary step to deal with the lastest incarnation of "climate emergency", is entirely conceivable. The symbolic beatification of a Nordic teenager at the UN, in front of prostrated Prime Ministers and former-Presidents, means that absolutely nothing, no matter how seemingly ridiculous, is beyond the conceivable in the secular global religion of climate change. Investors beware.

[FrankL]

Re: Bank Of England:- Go GREEN or Go Broke

RSA? I think you may mean KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), as RSA usually refers to the Republic of South Africa.

Climate change/carbon taxes are pure revenue generators. None of them are anywhere near high enough to make any difference in global carbon emissions. Jurisdictions like British Columbia, which has had a carbon tax for some time, are witnessing increasing carbon emissions due to population growth. Canada's Federal carbon tax falls into the same category - high enough to be an irritant, not high enough to make any material difference in national or global emissions.

Natural gas is the only currently practical large scale substitute fuel for liquid hydrocarbons and coal that might actually make a real difference in global carbon emissions in the next couple of decades.

What I am watching is whether the multi-national oil companies will become the "next tobacco companies". It's politically expedient to blame (and even threaten to sue) the oil explorers/producers, even though the majority of the carbon emissions occur at the point of consumption.

However, in this age of social media, facts are trumped by emotion, and our world would not appear to be burdened with an over abundance of critical thinking at this moment in history. People who think coal, petroleum and natural gas can be quickly replaced with something else have no idea (or are in denial) how radical, and completely unacceptable, the change in behaviour and standard of living has to be.

Instead, a strategy wherein heavily indebted democratic nation governments organize to strip the majority of the economic rent from petroleum production (a still legal substance), in a matter similar to what they did to the tobacco companies, is entirely conceivable. Investors beware.

yeah that should have read KSA not RSA.

What if this idea of taking money from petroleum producers coincide with a prediction of sky-rocketing oil prices due to increased demand from rising living standards in the emerging markets and perhaps peak cheap oil? It sounds like an opportunistic way to claw back any expected windfalls from the oil industry.

What's your take on Iran vs KSA ? At what point would the dwindling oil reserves of KSA (or the political situation) offset the risk from switching to a relationship with Iran to properly develop and ramp up their oil production? Clearly Obama and his team of policy advisers already were starting this process a while ago, and parallel efforts from Kerry et al. have tried to keep this process alive until official White House policy can be reversed.

[Mega]

Re: Bank Of England:- Go GREEN or Go Broke

[Mega]

Re: Bank Of England:- Go GREEN or Go Broke

[shiny!]

Re: Bank Of England:- Go GREEN or Go Broke

Maybe a crazy idea, but could the US and her allies see a reversal in friendly-foe relationship between the west and KSA and the west and Iran respectively as inevitable, and prolonged disruption in oil supply and prices as a result of this process?

It might explain the push from western governments to push for electricity-powered transport alternatives, and trying to reduce dependency on NG (even though NG is better for the environment when used for cooking and home heating than many alternatives today).

Alternative wild idea: governments may be coordinating to introduce a climate change tax on oil, rendering it uneconomical for most purposes except low-volume high-value goods such as pharmaceuticals. However I cant see this work unless a very large majority of oil-consuming countries agree to implement it, and sanction any company avoiding it who opt to produce goods in a country that refuses to implement the tax.

People have gone insane. They push for electric-powered vehicles while simultaneously wanting to shut down carbon-fueled power plants. Where do they think the electicity to power their EVs comes from? They don't want oil, they don't want coal, they don't want natural gas (which is the cleanest of the lot), but they want everyone to drive EVs that require energy from power plants. sigh.

I know this is obvious to the people here, but I just had to say it.

[Mega]

Re: Bank Of England:- Go GREEN or Go Broke

They like children, if they wish hard enough it will happen........how many people are working in drones that can carry passengers?.........just up scale a $100 plastic drone from China!

Gee, I wonder why Helecopter producers use fosil fuel engines.........gee it couldn't be anything to do with needing vast power out put therefore engery dense fuel?

Mike

[GRG55]

Re: Bank Of England:- Go GREEN or Go Broke

yeah that should have read KSA not RSA.

What if this idea of taking money from petroleum producers coincide with a prediction of sky-rocketing oil prices due to increased demand from rising living standards in the emerging markets and perhaps peak cheap oil? It sounds like an opportunistic way to claw back any expected windfalls from the oil industry.

What's your take on Iran vs KSA ? At what point would the dwindling oil reserves of KSA (or the political situation) offset the risk from switching to a relationship with Iran to properly develop and ramp up their oil production? Clearly Obama and his team of policy advisers already were starting this process a while ago, and parallel efforts from Kerry et al. have tried to keep this process alive until official White House policy can be reversed.

The world will be using coal, oil and natural gas for a generation or three yet. The alternative is a steep reduction in living standards practically everywhere, radical changes in energy consumption and economic behaviours (everything from how our work in our cities are organized, to food production and distribution, to how we move people locally and long distance), and the start of a significant decline in global population.

The "radical" environmental movement (and I include some of the candidates currently running for the highest office in the land in my country, Canada) are being flat out dishonest with people, many of whom actually believe there are zero negative consequences to pursuing some of these policies. I am hopeful that Greta Thunberg represents "peak environmental hysteria" and we can move back to a rational adult discussion.

Iran has always been the more logical and natural ally to the USA. If you read some of my postings after 9/11 anyone reading this will understand why. I think the USA has screwed up that relationship as badly as it has screwed up the way it has handled Cuba, lo these many decades. So not sure there's any realistic way to fix that any time soon. In the meantime the USA continues to align itself with what has to be one of the most backwards, medieval nations on earth, a relationship that has long outlived its usefulness. I am not prone to conspiracy theories, but anybody who understands how these countries work will tell you there is no way the Saudi government was not complicit in the funding that culminated in 9/11, the kidnapping of Saad Hariri, the dismemberment of Khashoggi, and a host of other disreputable actions. The Al Saud clan are past their best before date.

The shale oil technology developments have completely upended the balance of power between OPEC, and the USA as a consuming nation. OPEC, the Russians and the Chinese are all still trying to figure out how this will play out into a new equilibrium. The two Saudi led efforts to hamper the US shale industry were abject failures as the break-even cost of production continues to fall. As the Permian, and eventually the other major Lower-48 black oil shale basins, are consolidated by the major multi-nationals such as XTO/Exxon, Chevron, Oxy, ConocoPhillips, I expect this downward trend to continue. Unless the government manages to royally screw it up.

If (a big IF) the USA is finally going to withdraw from the long standing Middle East quagmire, it will start in the peripheral countries. Syria may be an interesting case study. The Russians are supporting Assad and also selling weapons to the Turks. So which side do they play in the current situation? That used to be an exclusively USA problem since WWII. The game is really becoming interesting...

[Mega]

Re: Bank Of England:- Go GREEN or Go Broke

WE NEED a MEGA Collaspe, Mass unemployment like 1980's.............trust me this CRAP get flushed in times like that!

Just saying.....
Mike