[ROCKMAN]

Yes, case is as closed as your mind. LOL. So disappointing that you choose to criticize without looking at the easily discovered FACTS. If you're going to base your understand on Adam's unsupported OPINIONS you are truly doomed.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'Y')es, case is as closed as your mind. LOL. So disappointing that you choose to criticize without looking at the easily discovered FACTS. If you're going to base your understand on Adam's unsupported OPINIONS you are truly doomed.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'S')orry RM, but my stupid sarcasm overwhelmed my kindness. In my defense, I left a hint: bibo ergo sum == I drink therefore I am

[Zarquon]

http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2016 ... -vehicles/

"Consider that in the U.S., from 2014 to 2015, new car sales of conventional internal combustion vehicles increased from 16.5 million to 17.5 million. Yet EV sales in the U.S. actually decreased from 122,438 to 116,099. In other words, they have a very long way to go to even dent the growth in conventional new car sales, much less make an actual reduction in the fleet.
...
Globally, EV sales are running 43% ahead of last year’s pace. That’s far behind Norway’s blistering pace that failed to reduce oil consumption, and well behind the 60% growth rate assumed by the Bloomberg article to cause a 2 million bpd drop in demand by 2023. If they assumed a lower growth rate of 45% — still unreasonably high in my view — they don’t impact 2 million bpd of demand until 2028. That’s another 5 years of demand growth for oil, but also importantly another 5 years of depletion of existing fields. Oil demand won’t continue to grow forever, because ultimately depletion will catch up and force prices much higher. In that case, what will happen isn’t the price crash that Bloomberg predicted, it’s the exact opposite."

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zarquon', 'h')ttp://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2016/07/29/why-i-am-skeptical-of-electric-vehicles/

"Consider that in the U.S., from 2014 to 2015, new car sales of conventional internal combustion vehicles increased from 16.5 million to 17.5 million. Yet EV sales in the U.S. actually decreased from 122,438 to 116,099. In other words, they have a very long way to go to even dent the growth in conventional new car sales, much less make an actual reduction in the fleet.
...
Globally, EV sales are running 43% ahead of last year’s pace. That’s far behind Norway’s blistering pace that failed to reduce oil consumption, and well behind the 60% growth rate assumed by the Bloomberg article to cause a 2 million bpd drop in demand by 2023. If they assumed a lower growth rate of 45% — still unreasonably high in my view — they don’t impact 2 million bpd of demand until 2028. That’s another 5 years of demand growth for oil, but also importantly another 5 years of depletion of existing fields. Oil demand won’t continue to grow forever, because ultimately depletion will catch up and force prices much higher. In that case, what will happen isn’t the price crash that Bloomberg predicted, it’s the exact opposite."

[ROCKMAN]

Z - Shame on you for try to use published FACTS to argue against Adam's opinions. For Dog's sake he's actually seen EV's on the road. So there you go: absolute proof of a significant transition away from ICE's. LOL.

I can actually pick on your post a bit: "...they don’t impact 2 million bpd of demand until 2028." Define impact: does that mean ICE's won't be burning more fossil fuels after 2028? Or does it mean ICE's will exist in greater numbers then today and burning more ff but not as much as they would be if more EV's had not be sold?

Back to the bottom line I keep pushing: as long as the number of ICE's on the road is increasing every year (even with higher mpg ratings) it doesn't matter how many EV's are bought and their rate of increase: more fossil fuels are being used for transportation every year. The transition to EV's hasn't even begun yet. And it won't until the number of ICE's on the road stops increasing. Until then all efforts to reduce transportation fuel consumption are losing ground. IOW we are transitioning to an increase in consumption of fossil fuels...not a decrease.

The critical transitioning isn't the # of EV's sold and never will be. It will be the transition to a decreasing number of ICE's on the road. And given that 98%+ of new vehicles sold this year are ICE's (adding to the 1.2 billion still burning fossil fuels) we are a long f*cking way from even the beginning of a transition.

Whistling past the grave yard is one thing. But closing one's eyes and telling yourself it doesn't even exist is rather childish IMHO. LOL.

[ROCKMAN]

Sub - Perhaps for a New Year's resolution you and I should ignore posts by meanies like Z. As long as we have our buddy pstarr around we'll have ample opportunity to vent. LOL.

[dashster]

EVs have mostly been compliance cars to this point, with the big exception of Tesla and the Nissan Leaf. But now BMW and Mercedez are doing electrics and they aren't subject to compliance regulations. There is still debate on whether the Chevy Bolt will be a compliance car or pushed in all 50 states. The Bolt and the coming Model Tesla 3, with their greater than 200 mile range and less than 40K price could be the cars that really kickstart the EV market.

Battery packs are still very expensive, but like anything, they seem to be coming down. And there is talk of much faster charging via higher power chargers.

[Subjectivist]

What about the new well in Iraq some in the media see as continuing the oil glut for another year?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')SLO -- DNO ASA, the Norwegian oil and gas operator, has announced that the Peshkabir-2 well currently drilling in the Kurdistan region of Iraq has discovered oil in the Cretaceous horizon in the southern flank of Peshkabir field.

The well flowed at a stable rate of 3,800 bpd of 28° API oil on a 52/64 in. choke from an open hole test of a 170-m interval. Pressure data supported by observations of oil shows from cuttings and side wall cores indicate a Cretaceous oil interval in excess of 300 m.

Peshkabir-2 was spudded last October to explore the Cretaceous horizon and appraise the previously tested deeper Jurassic reservoir on a 2012 discovery, 18 km to the west of the company's flagship Tawke field. Following acquisition of new 3D seismic, Peshkabir-2 was originally planned for 2015 but delayed following the drop in world oil prices and interruption in payments for the company's production and exports from Kurdistan.

The well, currently drilling ahead of schedule and under budget, is expected to reach a total depth of 3,500 m and will be completed in the Jurassic by early February. Pre-spud estimates for drilling, open hole testing of the Cretaceous and completion stood at $17.5 million.

DNO is considering a number of options to step up appraisal of the new Cretaceous discovery, including a geological side-track in the central part of the Peshkabir structure or a third well. Options are also under consideration for possible early Peshkabir production and trucking to the company's gathering, processing and export facilities at Fish Khabur some 12 km away.

"We are very encouraged by what we have seen so far in this well," said Bijan Mossavar-Rahmani, executive chairman of DNO. "Certainly our subsurface and drilling teams have started the year on the right foot," he added.

DNO operates and holds a 55% working interest in the Tawke license, which holds Peshkabir field. Genel Energy and the Kurdistan Regional Government hold interests of 25% and 20%, respectively.

[ROCKMAN]

Sub - "...some in the media see as continuing the oil glut for another year?". I suppose it could extend the glut however much a 0.0037% increase in global oil production can accomplish such an response. Of course if the can drill 9 more similar well in the next 12 months they could collectively increase global production by 0.037%.

[Tanada]

It is reminiscent of all the talk back in 2005 of how ever '10 million barrels new field' was proof we had nothing to worry about.

[ROCKMAN]

T - Yep, Sub was just tossing some red meet to the crowd here. But maybe Doc could add something. I don't know much about that geology but it sounds like it might be a new play. Wouldn't change the POD much if at all. But maybe interesting.

[KilonBerlin]

It is impossible to give even a year, and even a 1/10th of a year... One single exploration which hits an oil field changes everything in an Area... for example in 1950 when Persia was still one of the largest oil producers and the once world largest refinery (build in 1912 after oil was found in 1908 from the 1901 bought Oil Concession the Shah offered, he needed some money for his "lifestyle", Knox Darcy bought it for 40,000 Pounds... which in 1901 was really much money for a single person, but a joke... However in 1950 I would say nobody expected that the United Kingdom itself could ever supply its own oil needs, especially since in 1950 the post-WW2 motorization in Europe, Australia/NZ, Canada/US and some other places was reaching record levels and potential was extreme high...

and 30 years later in 1980 the UK was a major oil producer and in the late 1990's a real large one, also very high amounts (compared to the past) of natural gas were produced... In East Africa for example there were some very "interesting" data (seismic? 3D?!) and I think even there was a small field found, but because of the in fact not existing infrastrucutre in East-Africa (Tanzania/Mozambique or how it is written in English were the first ones, but there are basins crossing countries of course, as far north as South Sudan and into the south into South Africa and Offshore East-Africa (an area which is unimportant, it is quite far away from the Sues Canal, so only through oil tankers and the old South-African route the oil could be exported into the west, or something like 3,000 kilometers or more into the North and than the Sues Canal, but since it did cost 5 years ago for large ships over 400,000 US-$ to pass, I think it is smarter to drive around instead of using the Canal and pay the high price, but this oil is not needed!

We are "swimming" in oil if you want so... Iraq just for example showed that it does not give a ....... about the OPEC plan which brought a small increase in the first days of this years, but now they were falling already this week... today should be a new EIA-Report about US data... I guess an high or even higher production compared with quite small imports of crude oil, and a high use of oil, and low use of blending components, I would say... and the fuel Ethanol production is now for many months always above 1 million barrels daily, so I guess it will increase too with the time... I mean Brazil would consume at least 50% more oil without its fuel ethanol...

We have oil for over 100 years with the unconventional! The technic will be first, and the Arab/OPEC states could end up with much oil, as long as we do not find a super power creation like a "fusion" or so than oil will be always worth "a bit" because of its energy content per liter or ton, it could be used to fire electric power plants, like a "better coal" in terms of energy density or so,even in German I do not remember the correct words for this fusion reactor, it is like a nuclear reactors, just much better because other fuel, less radiation and shorter half-life and not like Uran with its ten thousands of years half-life time or how you call it in English, medicine it is the time when 50% were eliminated.

Iraq will export in February 2017 very much more than "allowed":

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')ccording to Iraq’s national oil company, the State Organization for Marketing of Oil (SOMO), had disclosed plans as of December 8, nine days after agreeing to cut production, to increase deliveries of its Basra oil grades by about 7 percent to 3.53 million barrels a day compared with October levels.