Trump says starting day 1. From an investor standpoint, which U.S.energy companies stand to benefit the most?

I'm pretty sure the average American consumer is going to benefit a lot!

Just do it!!!... Dan

yes by lower energy costs and it will jump start economy by putting people back into high paying jobs and money into the other industries

but it won't be a over the night fix it takes time to get leases and people to believe it and get rigs back out there and people hired and trained. 6- 18 months to get it back up.

There's been a lot of mergers and buy outs the past few years. With that said, when Exxon bought Pioneer resources that gave them a whole lot of lease acreage. I'd call that a safe play for sure.

Just drilling and producing crude is one thing, the real thing that would lower fuel costs would have the EPA release the permits for refineries to switch to shale oil, they're stuck having to refine heavy crude only.

good point on the refineries yes we need some bad and some of the ludicrous EPA regulations done away with so it doesn't cost five times what it should so the companies will want to invest

Sure, would be nice if he would focus on nuclear. Not saying not to drill but we need to get the nuclear ball rolling. I don't expect he will.

nuclear will always be a hard sale till proven it can be safe and no one get hurt ever. to many melt downs and just saying OH BUT WE NOW KNOW HOW TO MAKE IT SAFE, won't do the job

I don't think anyone is against a good source for long term cheap energy, but good gosh find the new energy before destroying the one we are using now to destroy us financially.

right now Fossil fuels is still the best option

till further notice

Most things worth doing are hard. If it were easy, it would have already been done by now.

#MAGA

We have to have oil and gas to be able to run all the equipment to build the power plants and refineries we need.

Trump said yesterday that fuel would be half what it is today within a year.

The nuclear plant in Ukraine has been bombed pretty regularly
It is still in operation

With green and nuclear, would you invest your money in refining?
I remember one of the CEO’s talking about it 4 years ago and he said there would never be another one built. While that might not be true I don’t think refining is going to grow here.

The good news is that as Ev use grows it lowers the demand for gasoline and diesel.

The push for nuclear has already started, both here and around the world.

Nuke is safe. About 4 more facilities in Texas would fix alot of problems. Maybe Trump will let it happen

Green energy is just a talking point for liberals. Obviously you’ve never been up close to a wind farm or seen the piles and piles of used blades.

Of all the many benefits of Trump being elected one of the best is that the climate change idiocy and destruction will be at least temporarily paused. Almost no one wants an EV, at least not now. They aren't feasible as a person's only or primary source of transportation. Now we won't have cultists from the Church of Global Warming forcing us into them.

I have dabbled in oil stocks for years and really just never could make them work for me. Also understand that needing to drill more to maintain the same company profit isn’t necessarily good for them. It is good for us though!!!

hope you are right but even if it is, it doesn't fix infrastructure problems.

just to put into visual for those who have never been around electricity.

Electricity goes down the outside of wire. The more you want to move the bigger the wire has to be. When you try and put to much down it the amps goes up by the demand.

To fix this you have to use bigger wire. That is bigger wire from the power plant to the sub stations with transformers. That wire also has to be bigger. Then you will need bigger wire to houses all of them, for EV use.

folks even if we had the manpower to do it soon we nor the electric power plants don't have the money. The next problem is who can trade away their new cars for themselves and their wives and kids for EV cars and the ones you are driving will be worthless.

The nuclear plants if they are truly safe can replace a lot of the old plants we have shut down which would help with brown outs and loss of power but does nothing for future since we need to upgrade our infrastructure period its getting old. When the last time you saw them taking down a big power transfer line to put a new bigger one in place. I have personally never seen it done. some of the lines have been in use for 50 years

i am trying to come up with a plan to install small nuclear generators at data centers & bit coin plants

None if the price of oil gets crushed.

The below is most of the reasons pople believe nuclear is not safe. This is a green energy site that doesn’t want Nuclear but arguments are still the same. Yes for the most part nuclear while running is a good source but they can melt down.

The refineries are still quicker to fix the short term problems the long term is nuclear or some other energy source. The main reason I would like to see some source for electricity is so we can have fossil fuels for cars longer till we can find a solution for our person vehicles. Their is Always a better way we haven't found yet.




https://www.greenamerica.org/nuclea...WkJ_NiQMVgET_AR2QzxpsEAAYAiAAEgI7efD_BwE

most of higher prices is from lack of refinery space from lost of refineries over last 40 years and non being replaced. The oil companies aren't responsible for the higher cost. The oil companies don't set the price the refineries say what they will pay for the oil not the other way around

Removing BS governmental regulations will lower production costs. The profitability point drops and more rigs will be active.

We need the sour crude for things like jet fuel and diesel. It is also a cheaper raw material to start with. With that said we refine plenty of WTI as well. We have some of the most sophisticated refineries in the world.

The point is if price drops below where it is profitable to drill or produce they will cease those operations until the price come back up. Has happened many times out here and that is typically when oil stocks take it in the shorts as well.

Yeah, removing burdensome regulations will help but the market is more complex and global than that. I live in the Permian Basin and I have seen it go from boom to bust overnight more than once.

what do you do for a living?
this makes no sense whatsoever. you realize sour gas takes a ton more equipment to move around and monitors and points to extract the sour gas.

diesel and jet fuel comes from oil not sour gas. no such thing has sour crude the sour gas is a killer and just a small amount will kill you. oil is nothing more than fertilizer. The salt in the water/oil mixtures is what kills grass and poisons water and the ground. oil just makes it messy. oil if it coats some animals and birds it can keep them from flying. if you ever saw a oiled road bed it usually has grass growing in it. The areas with dead trees and grass is the saltwater.

Most frac guys we work for are trying to survive with oil at 70

prices are still regulated by how much demand on refineries for fuel and how much supply they get from WTI, other US oil fields and Arab countries its still supply and demand. A tariff on foreign oil makes demand here go up immediately and jobs high paying jobs get hired almost immediately gas prices go up in the beginning but goes way down in the end. You could do some combination of the two.
We should be looking for alternatives for fossil fuel in the mean time to offset the arab countries.
We have things we can do but you also have to factor in world wide economies and what it does for world peace. Trump can bring energy prices down that's not hard its doing it without starting another war. Get rid of half of the EPA regulations, building new refineries, if nuclear really is safe build some new power plants this all bring growth to our economy and new jobs. The green energy woke politics have destroyed our country we need to come home with our money and take care of us. stop the illegals and ship home all who have come across in last 4 years.
with new technologies lifting cost is way down for the most part even here. shell is more cost but when they flow for 6-8 months most of these wells pay themselves off and some sooner.

I don't think you are going to see a massive swing in activity for a while. Oil and gas operators (those are the ones who own the wells and actually produce crude) have greatly tempered their activities when responding to market shifts. There has been so much consolidation in the past 3-4 years that there are very few of the small, agile "wildcatters" still left in the business. Those are the ones that added the most rigs chasing crude prices. My prediction is that the rig count will increase somewhere between 5 and 10% over the next 6 months. The increased production will actually drive oil prices down, but the activity level will continue the slow growth.

What this means for stocks - operators will see a short-term spike based on the speculation, and as they make public announcements of drilling plans. Service companies (Halliburton, SLB, Baker Hughes, Liberty, etc.) will get a bump in the quarter after the operators make their announcements.

Yes I have seen the same. I’m on the land side of the biz.

that has more to do with confidence in the government shutting them down so they don't drill so no fracking needed. The producers believing Trump will open up markets to them and keep things going for next four years has already gotten engineers drawing up new well sites and drilling plans as we write this post. They have to get drilling rigs out of mothball and new hands hired and trained. This will take 4-6 months to start bringing oil out. oil markets are as much about what they see as the futures as today's price. Oil companies do nothing on today's prices they do everything on future prices and demand. The economy gets to rolling and demand goes up get rid of some of the more useless regulations and lifting cost comes down. The lifting cost for most of this country is 45-55 a barrel so 70 even less can make money if they have a 8-10 month business plan

Remember that stance. I think oil will not do much because of who is president.
Its not the government they fear, its the market.

I'm not sure that is an accurate estimate for lifting costs anymore. Granted I am a little removed from the operator side of the business, but the cost of services has increased so much over the past 4 years that I find it difficult to believe lifting costs have remained static.

The drilling + completion cost for a new shale well is now over $11 million. In 2019 that cost was between $2.5 and 3 million. Steel prices are up around 80% since then, and regulatory requirements have more than doubled the cost of production facilities.

Nuke is safe. About 4 more facilities in Texas would fix alot of problems. Maybe Trump will let it happen [/quote]

i am trying to come up with a plan to install small nuclear generators at data centers & bit coin plants [/quote]

https://www.nuscalepower.com/en[/quote]

absolutely
this company was what i touted in the TFF stock market thread
they are killing it

i am trying to come up with a plan to install small nuclear generators at data centers & bit coin plants [/quote]

https://www.nuscalepower.com/en[/quote]

absolutely
this company was what i touted in the TFF stock market thread
they are killing it [/quote]

We could use more than 4 and if smaller nuclear plants become a thing we would need 50 or more.
The two that operate in Texas now have a combined output capacity of 5.3k MW. Four more and we'd have about 16k MW.
In comparison, NG has a capacity of over 68k MW. Wind and solar, 65k MW.

True you may be right I haven't looked in a few years but it also has more to do with the production flowing especially in the beginning and how long it takes to pay well off.
the actually pumping and electric cost is a small part of it. The shell play is so costly because of the directionally drilling for miles on lateral lines.
but even if it is and the well flows in @ just a 1000 BPD on one of those shell wells that is still only a 200 day payout at 55 dollars per barrel lifting cost. They will drill at that if they think Trump will take care of them for the next 3-4 years. They will have a few years of good profits after the 200 days. Yes the flow will fall off but its all gravy after being paid off. Alot of those wells in ND came on at well over 1500 per day to some in the 6000 BPD range. The south TX stuff wasnt quit that good but they still came on and lasted for a good long time to pay out

absolutely
this company was what i touted in the TFF stock market thread
they are killing it [/quote]

We could use more than 4 and if smaller nuclear plants become a thing we would need 50 or more.
The two that operate in Texas now have a combined output capacity of 5.3k MW. Four more and we'd have about 16k MW.
In comparison, NG has a capacity of over 68k MW. Wind and solar, 65k MW.
[/quote]

I wonder how much TX lost in power by shutting down the three over at Monticello,

and they should be put in jail for destroying a really good bass fishing lake. LOL

We are talking nuclear and you are talking coal. Its not coming back.
The decision to shut it down was the power company. Due to regulations, sure.

need more refining

epa has us handcuffed

reading comprehension lol

you were talking about how much TEXAS needs. I was only pointing out they shut down three big ones and never replaced them with other power plants to off set loss of available power nothing more and I didn't say anything about what kind of power. good gosh ally

Fixed it to be accurate. I was talking about nuclear power and pointed out how much we had in comparison to the other sources.
NOTE: I mentioned solar, wind and natural gas when showing how much power from nuclear that we could expand on. I did not mention coal because its just not going to make a comeback.

ok I will type slower this time.

I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING BUT THEY SHUT DOWN THREE POWER PLANTS AND DIDN'T REPLACE THE POWER.
you listed the amount of power needed to replace. I was just pointing out Tx like a lot have shut down coal power plants and never replaced them.
That's it nothing more. I never said anything about coal just that three plants were shut down. I don't care if you start a dozen new plants that run off of BS you still haven't replaced the three plants they shut down so you don't have that power

start up some with horse stuff I don't care

I own oil and gas mineral interests on a ranch that gets produced. Been around oil companies since I was kid. I never said anything about gas. Heavy/Sour crude. Sour crude contains more sulfur. Refining is chemistry and certain end products require different inputs. I didn’t make up the term so here you go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_crude_oil

They didn't replace them because they are getting rid of coal power plants. You know that.
They aren't coming back and you don't replace something you are trying to get rid of.
Thats why I didn't mention it and why I wondered why you did.

ok I can't type it any slower for you. I DID NOT SAY anything about coal. I said replace the pwoer lost. I don't care if you go take a poop and run it with that. TEXAS didn't replace the lost power. Why is that so hard for you to get

so I guess what power plants were built to replace those three is a better way of getting through to you whether its with nuclear or not.

I just did a quick look and our energy needs have grown, not dropped since Monticello shut down.
Why do you believe we have not replaced the energy that Monticello produced? I'm pretty sure they took that into account when they shut it down and as you know, natural gas along with solar and wind have grown a lot since then.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here since I didn't say any of that.
I didn't say anything about demand dropping. I mentioned the three because demand as not dropped but gone up with more people and so on. There is no evidence they replaced them and the ice storm a few years ago. that showed they didn't have the capability to keep up because they didn't replace the coal fired plants. the coal fired kept running during ice storms or summer time. That is about the only time they ran them any more was in peak demand.
Texas is known for rolling blackout which is another way of showing they didn't replace them. They shut down most of the coal fired plants under obama which was absolutely idiotic if you hadn't built replacement before you shut them down which they didn't. but on that subject a lot of states have done the same thing which is stupid. Why would you get rid of power plants before replacing them. that is all about being able to charge more for power. Why would you get rid of oil and refineries before getting another way of fueling cars.
with the clean coal out of wyoming and new technologies coal fired plants were about as clean as the gas you now fire a lot of them with. any way and its cheaper for lower energy cost.
if you want to get rid of fossil fuel find but don't get rid of our energy before you do or make it so high the average perrson can't afford it anymore. that is all you have really done with the whole green energy deal is just move money from this industry to that one it didn't save the planet but if did help al gore and the green energy people to make a lot fo money over the fraud of global warming

Is it smart to quit your job without having another one lined up? MMMMMMMMMMMMM

for liberals and green people the answer is yes for everyone else no

Do true liberals have jobs?

They do. Making life miserable for others.

Now you're saying ERCOT, all appointed by the governor are liberals. Plus the energy companies that asked to have the plant closed down.

YOU COULD, but won't try to support your contentions with data or even showing them running around like chickens with their heads cut off when the plant closed. Fact is they had it planned and nothing bad happened as a result of it closing.
There, you've dumped on Abbott and I've backed him up. Imagine that.

JR Ewing Cliff Calvin Carl, is my favorite Carl Character.

You people are clueless if you think the oil industry is going to drill themselves into bankruptcy. They will always try to maximize profit. They never put low cost of fuel as a priority.
The government does not have the power to make the industry over produce.

your right

but they will always make as much as they can. they have people who know about what the well will make and pay off before ever signing a lease. They get beat on dry holes but they are still in business for a reason and PChapin is correct

Apparently you don’t know how the Presidential magic wand works………..



Yes that was sarcasm.

I worked for a pipeline company for 36 years, measurement not construction, Sour Crude is a real thing, low gravity and a little “dirtier” than sweet crude. And what are your credentials?

I should have said heavy crude instead of sour crude in my original comment. Sometimes that gets thrown around interchangeably by folks whether it is correct or not. Indeed it is a real thing as is H2S.

LOL you worked on a pipe line measurements okie dokie LMAO

I stayed in a holiday inn express last night.

that's like saying I worked at a tire fixen shop so I must be a race car driver. LOL
and I ain't sure East Texas even has any sour gas wells left. LMAO
WOW you don't know the difference between heavy crude and sour gas wells or H2S wells which is where sour gas or crude as you say comes from.
LOL pipeline man LMAO

He was in west Texas I believe and as we discussed in our PM sour crude and H2S are two different things. I’m pretty sure he would know what is running through those pipelines.

I lived and worked in West Texas, worked around Sour Crude and West Texas Intermediate. There are also many other 3 letter terms for crude oil. You may have stayed in a Holiday Inn, but I know how it was built.

Regardless of how much oil and refined fuel will or won't cost, it's a good thing for America, its people, the economy, and common sense to not have a cult member of the Church of Global Warming as President. Let "green" people and companies research, build, and sell whatever they want 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Let people who want their products buy as many and as much as they want. Whenever it becomes better, more feasible, more convenient, more dependable, widely available, and at least as economical people will switch to it voluntarily. I will do so myself.

Until then, it is both destructive and ridiculous to force Americans to buy it.

The market will decide when it is time.

Amen!!!

work around it LOL okie dokie

if you did you would know H2S is what makes crude sour it comes from sulphur gas. LOL A measurement guy just measure production going through a pipeline. I pumped it out of the ground in arkansas texas and half the states in this country. I worked around it in south arkansas where some of the highest contents of H2S is.

if you knew what it was you would know there is no difference it's all H2S gas or rotten eggs, is another slang term. mixed with oil or saltwater. I have worked with both. how many locations have you been on where it was in the air. What parts per million is dangerous. do you have to wear gas mask around this stuff.

pipeliner LOL yea right. I have no doubt you may not have been a good hand but saying you know about sour crude. That is just slang for H2S

there is heavy crude and light crude and it can have all kinds of gases mixed into it depending on formation and where you are pumping it. Texas is a big state and its different all over and different from there to oklahoma or ND or Wy. Different levels of gas. that is why they usually have to have two ment around tankers when they are cleaned out have hauling anything with H2S in it.
The thickness of the oil is different even from different formation in same well and different gases in each formation and content of the gas. sour crude is nothing more then crude coming out of a sour gas well it can be both light and heavy.

Can see talking to you is like talking to the worms we had in the patch, google it can be your friend. I saw plenty of folks just like you and the one thing they all had in common was they’re smarter than everyone in the room.

sour crude or H2S crude is less desirable becasue it cost more to refine and more dangerous at higher concentration of H2S. The crude can be light or heavy most of the time it come out of heavy. I have seen lightweight coming out of south arkansas and in the bromine fields. that also have oil in them. The below is just a quick search of H2S crude and why no one really wants it because of how much it cost to refine it

Here are some characteristics of sour crude oil:
Impurities: Sour crude oil contains a high amount of the impurity sulfur.

Toxicity: Sour crude oil can be toxic and corrosive, especially when it contains high levels of hydrogen sulfide gas (H2S).

Smell: At low concentrations, H2S gives the oil the smell of rotting eggs.

Processing: Sour crude oil requires additional processing to remove contaminants, break down hydrocarbon compounds, and reduce H2S gas.

Cost: Sour crude oil is generally less expensive than lighter, sweeter grades of crude oil. However, the cost of processing sour crude oil is higher, which results in higher-priced gasoline.

Location: Some of the sourest crude can be found in Mexico, Venezuela, and Canada.

well since you didn't seem to know what you were talking about and I have actually work around it not just measured it then maybe show how you know what you are talking about.
it called rotten eggs for a reason

Please drill on my 40 acres in Panola county on the Haynesville shale‼️👍🏼‼️

It’s always amazing

There are some elephants standing in the room nobody notices.

#1 priority for Trump is to reverse the halts on the LNG ports. That one action there will cut the knees off Russia, and give the US a solid export product for decades.

When they restore the gas market, then everything starts running hard again.

We have to refill the strategic reserve asap.

Yup

ASAP to use if we were, God forbid, in a war with china.

We can't wait to get in a war to start.

but do you fill it now or open up drilling let the price fall then fill

it's a gamble either way

Pile like this? It’s just one place, out in Sweetwater, called Global Fiberglass Solutions. Mess around in street view to see the scale of this place.

Fill it now.

Nuclear won't be a thing if you can't massively speed up the process.

I wonder if there is anyway for a president to EO a power plant or refinery to help with both.

I am saying that based off of they can prove safety on both first or right after. The process on both is probably 5 years to get build

It was sped up massively. Twice. Back in 1945.

Have they figured out what to do with the worn out fiberglass yet or are they still just pilling it up

9.3
Nice

For the past 100+ years.
The U.S. economy is based on our mobility. The easier/faster/cheaper we can move stuff and people around, the better off we all are.

Every recession in the past 60 years followed a restriction of our mobility.

Yes. And yes.

Yep.

Now that Amazon and some other large corporations are investing in nuclear power, specifically what Amazon referred to as small modular reactors, I’m sure it will speed up quite a bit.

That looks pretty cool.

It’s so simple…

It's my understanding (haven't researched much... yet) that Scotus effectively ruled (via the reversal of Chevron) that government bureaucrats do NOT have the authority to interpret a law passed by Congress via legislation. I believe the actual ruling reversed it back to the Judicial branch to decide HOW to interpret a law passed by congress VS the bureaucrats themselves.

The current administration has simply NOT enforced it for obvious reasons.....they want MORE regulation (as it increases their power and Influence over the citizenry) .... but that's about to change and in a big way.

IF my understanding and interpretation is correct, then my bet is you're wrong in regards to the construction of refineries....they just won't be built in CA.

A certain level of regulation is certainly warranted, but, IMOP we are long passed the point of logical regulation and have long passed into
OVER-regulation.

As for EV's, I think they are great...for the right person with the right mission.

Once again, I have a few questions....

EXACTLY where is the electrical infrastructure to charge them?

How is this electrical infrastructure to be fueled?

Where is the charging infrastructure?

How are we going to pay to upgrade the electrical grid?

How are tens of millions of folks who can't afford a home, etc and who have virtually nothing in savings going to finance an EV?

Allison, you guys NEVER answer these questions... and I've asked several times before on this very site.... so answer em.

BTW, I'm NOT against EV's at all, to a point.

However, to sell the "EV revolution" via lies, distortions, obfuscations, etc etc etc in order to FORCE some magical transformation (275 MILLION to 300 MILLION registered vehicles here in the USA) to electric isn't going to fly. It's simply a fantasy at present and well beyond the foreseeable FUTURE.... certainly 2030, 2040, 2050....pick one. .

You guys don't know that Congress had planned for the reserve to drop way before Biden?
Starting in 2015 they allowed the presidents to sell off oil from the SPR to help fund government. Yes, they are in the budget bills every year.

They could use it like Trump tried to do in 2020. Buy a lot when oil prices are very low then sell it when they get high.
It fights the price extremes. Other than that though the SPR was made to help us when we didn't produce enough for ourselves. That was back in the 70's. Its not needed as much any more.

WOW this is a new dumbest post by alley WOW

[/quote]You guys don't know that Congress had planned for the reserve to drop way before Biden?
Starting in 2015 they allowed the presidents to sell off oil from the SPR to help fund government. Yes, they are in the budget bills every year.

They could use it like Trump tried to do in 2020. Buy a lot when oil prices are very low then sell it when they get high.
It fights the price extremes. Other than that though the SPR was made to help us when we didn't produce enough for ourselves. That was back in the 70's. Its not needed as much any more. [/quote]



Once again, you REFUSE to answer a SINGLE question.....THAT speaks volumes.

BTW, I KNOW why you won't/can't answer a SINGLE question, the reason is the VERY people who pimp these narratives (all based on bs) can't answer them either. Fairy dust and good thoughts won't create some magical "green economy" nor will they solve substantive issues Allison....

You guys are now trapped in your own BS.... and those of us that can read and critically think know this....

BTW, I can't forget to mention all the "environmental hypocrisy" by the very people evoking their virtue signaling environmentalism mantra 24/7/365.... lithium mining, battery disposal, fan blades, bird kills, broken solar panels (terribly inefficient when scaled up), not to mention the thousands, and thousands of acres of defaced landscape, etc etc. The irony isn't lost on me...

One other thing, how about all the tax dollars wasted on the Solyndra's, federally funded charging stations, "infrastructure projects," etc etc etc. Billions, upon billions, upon billions of precious tax dollars wasted....

Also, I'd be remissed if I didn't add this, you cannot practice Keynesian Economics in perpetuity, period, much less to pay for something that is NOT essential to the citizenry. Nor can you afford to tax the ambition out of the citizenry, period, much less to fund a fantasy .... It simply doesn't work that way.

MOST people have to produce to feed themselves, etc as well as pay enough taxes to the treasury to fund what is essential.....and some SERIOUS energy is required to efficiently do this (and hopefully affordable). After all, the vast majority of us don't have the luxury of jumping on a G650 to zip off to Caan, or Davos.... again, the irony and hypocrisy isn't lost on me.

Hydrocarbon based energy is here to stay for many, many, many decades. It's either that or we can all lay in a pool of our own sweat attempting to sleep in the summer and burn wood by the cord all winter (speaking of deforestation) while reading by candlelight.

In other words, I guess you guys propose we simply discard all the technical innovations of the 20th century in favor of the 19th, or the 18th, or the 17th, etc. After all, the majority of these incredible innovations involve, both directly and indirectly, hydrocarbons...

https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2023/08/28/ERCOT-EV-Adoption-Final-Report.pdf
You are assuming a very agressive move to EV's, estimates that are not in line with anyone that I know of.
Even if they moved to selling all cars with batteries by 2030 there would still be a large number of ICE vehicles on the road for decades to come. As an example, I own 2011 and 2000 year vehicles. If they only sell EV's in 2030 then 25 years from then there will still be a number of ICE vehicles on the road. The only way that would not happen is if a battery car was cheaper to operate. As you believe thats not going to happen a lot of people will keep their dino fueled cars long after 2030.
Who knows when 275 million of them will be on the road but certainly not till 2060 or later.
The question of infrastructure is one that ERCOT has started looking at. As you can see they aren't running around screaming that there is no way to provide for it.

They estimate that in the next few years EV's will be cheaper to own than ICE. Tesla has already said they are going to start selling their battery packs next year that have a life expectancy of a million miles with 10 degradation. Many new technologies are in development and costs are continuing to drop. Who knows what will happen? Not me and I don't know why you would expect I have any answers that you could not find by looking yourself.


When you said my estimate of building new refineries, that came from the CEO of one of the largest oil companies in the world who was talking about refining infrastructure. He said he does not expect that there will ever be a new one built. They had been closing them. The last large refinery was built in 1977.

Refineries are not being built because of epa regulations and cost to built versus pay back they make money the old one were shut down due to EPA regulations not because of profitability

They need time to pay for themselves and with epa global warming nuts they won’t take the chance and most don’t want the hassle and law suits to build one
So the American public pays more for gasoline because of it

They have another scrap field just out of town on Hwy 70

WOW this is a new dumbest post by alley WOW


The day is young, just wait.

His turmoil is the fact that everyone doesn't bow down to the greatest mind on the internet, how dare anyone question his insight and wisdom?

Outside of large-scale wartime operations such as World War II, government should never try to coerce manufacturers or consumers into any type of product such as EVs. That's not the place of government. It's the place of the free market. Making up a ridiculous lie about an "existential threat" and claiming we're all going to die if we don't stop driving our Sierras, Tahoes, and Corvettes doesn't change the fundamental principle.

Let the people decide what they want.

https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2023/08/28/ERCOT-EV-Adoption-Final-Report.pdf

Post Feb of '21 ERCOT has ZERO credibility IMOP





You are assuming a very agressive move to EV's, estimates that are not in line with anyone that I know of.

You must not be familiar with CA (sarcasm) ... they first proposed their EV MANDATE for 2030 and now they've settled on 2035.....this from the same morons that can't import enough electricity to power themselves during the summer months. Oh how they must enjoy their "brownouts" while staring at their exorbitant power bills.




Allison, they cannot EFFICIENTLY power the miniscule % of EV's CURRENTLY on the road in CA, so, I have to ask this........

EXACTLY H O W are they going to charge all these future EV's???

They're obviously planning on em traveling the streets and highways of the nirvana they claim to be creating. Good grief man, these are the same morons that have wasted BILLIONS on a yet to be completed high speed rail line (NOT even close) ... But, I bet a bunch of em have gotten very, very wealthy off that fiasco.








Even if they moved to selling all cars with batteries by 2030 there would still be a large number of ICE vehicles on the road for decades to come. As an example, I own 2011 and 2000 year vehicles. If they only sell EV's in 2030 then 25 years from then there will still be a number of ICE vehicles on the road. The only way that would not happen is if a battery car was cheaper to operate. As you believe thats not going to happen a lot of people will keep their dino fueled cars long


I believe this because it's a FACT to date.... and I don't deal in fantasy. Let's to go review their past prognostications regarding "battery technology" etc etc etc etc (as well as their climate models while we're at it) .

Allison, I TRY and deal in reality and not fantasy and, at present, their bold predictions regarding EV's haven't proven true, nor have their BS climate models of which they base their arguments.. I've read a bunch of the hacked emails from The University of East Anglia... Back in '13 IF memory serves... As a result I agree with Trump....

What REALLY galls me is this, these self same "experts" are trying to
MANDATE free citizens to purchase a vehicle they do NOT want.... and that's simply wrong.

Even worse, they're trying to mandate our ENTIRE economy to an energy source that is UNproven to scale, and might not EVER work to scale, at least in any of our lifetimes. Now THAT affects my kids and that REALLY bothers me....



Look, if an EV fits a person's mission then by all means buy one, but, NOT off the backs of the American taxpayer... that's simply wrong IMOP... VERY wrong.








Who knows when 275 million of them will be on the road but certainly not till 2060 or LATER.

Then, WHY the MANDATES???








The question of infrastructure is one that ERCOT has started looking at. As you can see they aren't running around screaming that there is no way to provide for it.

STARTED??? Bit late to the party IMOP....
.. Like I said earlier, ERCOT has ZERO credibility with me. So if you want to influence MY opinion they're a very poor choice. 25% + of Texas power tied to windmills and solar panels?? Apparently following the CA power plan right off the cliff.....









They estimate that in the next few years EV's will be cheaper to own than ICE. Tesla has already said they are going to start selling their battery packs next year that have a life expectancy of a million miles with 10 degradation. Many new technologies are in development and costs are continuing to drop. Who knows what will happen? Not me and I don't know why you would expect I have any answers that you could not find by looking yourself.

Estimate?? Who is "they?".

The second part is easy to answer... WHY do I expect you to have the answers is simple, because you've attempted to lecture me and the entirety of TFF in regards to EV's, etc on so so so so many occasions. It has appeared to me that you self anointed yourself as the expert on this site, so that's why I directed my questions to you.










When you said my estimate of building new refineries, that came from the CEO of one of the largest oil companies in the world who was talking about refining infrastructure. He said he does not expect that there will ever be a new one built. They had been closing them. The last large refinery was built in 1977.

Which CEO?? In what CONTEXT were these opinions uttered?? WHEN were they uttered... the exact point in time? You do realize that times change I assume?





Look Allison, I actually think you're a smart person and actually agree with you on occasion. I'm NOT trying to be an a-hole either. I've just grown VERY weary of being lectured to by folks that can't/won't answer simple, but VERY important questions regarding the subjects of which they lecture. IMOP, if ya' can't answer important questions then you shouldn't be lecturing....

ERCOT is the Texas agency responsible for our overseeing power production in Texas. Their board is appointed by Abbot.
If you don't find them credible who do you find credible. They will be the agency that steers Texas as far as electrical needs.

As I pointed out, how do you know these things or are you assuming that they will not be able to change?
IF you are correct I ASSUME we would have a large amount of information from anti EV people. I just don't see it, you?

The CEO's address was discussed in several threads a few years ago. It was Mike Worth, CEO of Chevron and he said that two years ago. Was he talking about recent regulatory issues? No, since that last one was built in 1977, he was talking about issues that have been around for almost 50 years.

PS, I was not lecturing to anyone. I offered my opinion.
Everyone has one.

[quote=Allison1]ERCOT is the Texas agency responsible for our overseeing power production in Texas. Their board is appointed by Abbot.
If you don't find them credible who do you find credible. They will be the agency that steers Texas as far as electrical needs.

Yes, and IF memory serves, their entire board resigned post the Feb '21 near electrical meltdown. Let's hope Governor Abbot made wiser choices in regards to their replacements. IF so then they should do a MUCH better job of operating the electrical grid...both in it's operation and it's improvements. IF so and the improvements prove their worth during the next potential weather calamity, then they'll regain my trust....at present, nope...






As I pointed out, how do you know these things or are you assuming that they will not be able to change?

I'm NOT assuming ANYthing Allison. You ARE the one doing the "assuming"... apparently at least. Assuming that the average citizen will be able to afford an EV..... Assuming that there will be a miraculous renaissance to our electrical grid, etc etc etc etc.


Again, WHERE is the electrical power going to come from to power these MILLIONS of EV's??



IF you are correct I ASSUME we would have a large amount of information from anti EV people. I just don't see it, you?

COMMON SENSE combined with an understanding of our current energy reality is all it takes for me.... CA brownouts is a reality... Feb '21 here in TX is a reality.

Like yourself, I do a lot of reading, but, I try and read ALL sides before I determine my opinion. I do NOT trust "the experts" at their word.....they've sure been wrong an awful lot during my lifetime.





The CEO's address was discussed in several threads a few years ago. It was Mike Worth, CEO of Chevron and he said that two years ago. Was he talking about recent regulatory issues? No, since that last one was built in 1977, he was talking about issues that have been around for almost 50 years.

I'm not sure you quite realize the significance of this....

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/...on-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/

I'm also not quite sure you're aware of the significance of last Tuesday.... and I'm NOT referring to Trump's election.

BTW, I'm under NO illusions that what Trump proposes to do will be accomplished during his final term. IMOP they cannot be accomplished in 4 years, much less the possibility of 2.

I do think that the ground is shifting underneath the beltways feet. It's because of this that I think the rules are being rewritten. As a result of that I'm very optimistic that substantive things might well get accomplished over the next decade...






PS, I was not lecturing to anyone. I offered my opinion.
Everyone has one.

I think it's safe to say that there are many on TFF who might well disagree with your assessment......




BTW, like I stated earlier, I do appreciate your intelligence and the thoughtful way you go about stating your opinions. I also very much appreciate that you stick to the subject and don't resort to name calling like others on here. I always avoid resorting to the lowest form of debate and it's apparent to me that you do same.

All I've ever asked is that you answer my questions regarding your opinions (as well as others with the same opinions). Unless my memory is failing me, up until now I don't remember you ever doing so... at least when it comes to my questions. Questions which IMOP are VERY relevant to this discussion....

Nice try.
Wish you were the first.

Just wait. You’ll see the narcissist side come out shortly.

Hehehe.... NOT a worry Mr Pat.... I'm under NO illusions....

They have nuclear reactors that power submarines. Seems like they're save enough. "American naval reactors starting with the S1W and iterations of designs have operated without incidents since USS Nautilus (SSN-571) launched in 1954"

IMOP, the small nuclear power plants are the most viable option to phase out traditional power plants, but, "they" apparently aren't in favor of them either... .although I certainly am as they SEEM to make the most sense

However, that still doesn't account for multiple other issues... public charging infrastructure, lack of range for over the road travel, long charge times when over the road, battery replacement cost, etc etc etc.

One of my favorites...
https://youtu.be/bJfrKNR3K2k?si=cM0GZqI3cx0CZU9E