I am about to discuss a topic that, for reasons that are unclear to me, has been politicized: oil and gas. I am writing this as a pragmatic analyst who looks at two factors: supply and demand.
You make good points about how little many changes in oil and gas use will affect our actual carbon release, and that is a source of concern. Perhaps elsewhere you have addressed the actual problem of climate change, where threat is existential and the evidence is compelling. If no action will make a difference, perhaps we should just maximize profits while we slide down the chute. But we are actually facing a serious problem, and we need to do something about it. I would ask smart people like you to think about what we should do. Please don't just say, "Let's hope it's not really a problem, and invest as though the climate will be irrelevant." If you have discussed this previously, please remind me (and us) where that is, and if you have not, please do.
Hi Vitaliy, the diesel use in the production of bread and beef seems like a bizarre statistic to justify that oil prices will go up. It also serves no useful purpose in the context of climate change because CO2 emissions (not including methane, which is worse for climate) caused by the production of 1 kg of beef are 25-50 times the emissions related to the production of a 1 kg loaf of bread.
(To beef's credit, it has many more calories and proteins are more satiating per 1 kcal than carbs, but that's a topic for another discussion.)
A ml of diesel is 832mg. So it takes well over a thousand times as much diesel to make the beef, according to your own statistics. But I think your writing here implies that mg is similar to ml, when in reality g is similar to ml (for water, the same).
1. There is one very good reason to vilify the oil/gas industry, which is that it actively funds efforts to discredit the evidence of climate change. It seems like you accept the reality of climate change. Shouldn't we whose lives will suffer from these effects vilify companies who use their economic clout to discredit good science and thereby delay our ability to implement greener alternatives?
2. You actually neglected to make one very good argument for supporting the domestic energy sector in the short run, which is that without it we make ourselves much more subject to the whims of autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, who have made no secret of their willingness to interfere in our elections.
Sorry, Vitaliy. No.2 is a political point. No.1 is about criticizing those who deliberately spread disinformation. That is, it's about ethics, not politics (even though many people bind this problem with their political preferences).
In your original reply to the original post by Dallas, you said about No.1, "not going into politics of this". In my opinion, No.1 is not about politics: it's about disinformation, specifically supporting falsehoods to increase profits. No.2 actually is about politics, specifically geopolitics.
Are there any specific sub-sectors you like? I was in a number of offshore drilling names last year, but closed out those positions as I was de-risking and going into T-bills.
I agree with your thesis, but am concerned that stocks overall are still overvalued, and will be pulled down by higher rates in the short term. With the 6 month bill yielding 5.5%, I just haven't found anything with a compelling enough upside in that timeframe.
Hasn’t this ALWAYS been the MO of NATO, which is also well-known as the North Atlantic Terrorist Organization? Very conveniently it is NEVER mentioned that the CIA went into Afghanistan, and stayed there for TWENTY years for one reason, to own the heroin business there for its obscene profits. IMHO, the USA / CIA did NOT withdraw from the debacle there, but the Afghans kicked them out and the withdrawal was just a cover story. https://stateofthenation.co/?p=192539
I see a lot of a reason to own Oil myself. True - the prices are now somewhat elevated so I’m not rushing all in. Small position in OXY and considering some Canadian producers. Would be much more interested if oil was around $40 though.
Hi Vitaliy- Great job on your fundraising efforts- enjoyed this piece. Best from Vegas
You make good points about how little many changes in oil and gas use will affect our actual carbon release, and that is a source of concern. Perhaps elsewhere you have addressed the actual problem of climate change, where threat is existential and the evidence is compelling. If no action will make a difference, perhaps we should just maximize profits while we slide down the chute. But we are actually facing a serious problem, and we need to do something about it. I would ask smart people like you to think about what we should do. Please don't just say, "Let's hope it's not really a problem, and invest as though the climate will be irrelevant." If you have discussed this previously, please remind me (and us) where that is, and if you have not, please do.
Hi Vitaliy, the diesel use in the production of bread and beef seems like a bizarre statistic to justify that oil prices will go up. It also serves no useful purpose in the context of climate change because CO2 emissions (not including methane, which is worse for climate) caused by the production of 1 kg of beef are 25-50 times the emissions related to the production of a 1 kg loaf of bread.
(To beef's credit, it has many more calories and proteins are more satiating per 1 kcal than carbs, but that's a topic for another discussion.)
The point is that it requires a significant amount of diesel to produce both beef and a loaf of bread.
A ml of diesel is 832mg. So it takes well over a thousand times as much diesel to make the beef, according to your own statistics. But I think your writing here implies that mg is similar to ml, when in reality g is similar to ml (for water, the same).
Vitaliy, I strongly urge you to read and subscribe to this GENIUS lady's work.
I have been following this GENIUS lady's work for many years now.
Coffee up for a slow read of an important MEGA issue.
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2023/10/25/todays-energy-bottleneck-may-bring-down-major-governments/
Thank you for sharing!!
I would like to hear your response to two points:
1. There is one very good reason to vilify the oil/gas industry, which is that it actively funds efforts to discredit the evidence of climate change. It seems like you accept the reality of climate change. Shouldn't we whose lives will suffer from these effects vilify companies who use their economic clout to discredit good science and thereby delay our ability to implement greener alternatives?
2. You actually neglected to make one very good argument for supporting the domestic energy sector in the short run, which is that without it we make ourselves much more subject to the whims of autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, who have made no secret of their willingness to interfere in our elections.
Good point on No. 2. Regarding no 1. - not going into politics of this.
Sorry, Vitaliy. No.2 is a political point. No.1 is about criticizing those who deliberately spread disinformation. That is, it's about ethics, not politics (even though many people bind this problem with their political preferences).
I don't know what you are specifically referring to.
In your original reply to the original post by Dallas, you said about No.1, "not going into politics of this". In my opinion, No.1 is not about politics: it's about disinformation, specifically supporting falsehoods to increase profits. No.2 actually is about politics, specifically geopolitics.
Thank you for clarifying.
Are there any specific sub-sectors you like? I was in a number of offshore drilling names last year, but closed out those positions as I was de-risking and going into T-bills.
I agree with your thesis, but am concerned that stocks overall are still overvalued, and will be pulled down by higher rates in the short term. With the 6 month bill yielding 5.5%, I just haven't found anything with a compelling enough upside in that timeframe.
Good article on Israel FYI!
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/biden-if-there-were-not-an-israel-wed-have-to-invent-one/?
More grist for your mill Sir.
Hasn’t this ALWAYS been the MO of NATO, which is also well-known as the North Atlantic Terrorist Organization? Very conveniently it is NEVER mentioned that the CIA went into Afghanistan, and stayed there for TWENTY years for one reason, to own the heroin business there for its obscene profits. IMHO, the USA / CIA did NOT withdraw from the debacle there, but the Afghans kicked them out and the withdrawal was just a cover story. https://stateofthenation.co/?p=192539
Very knowledgeable guy on the Israel debacle= https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCPCqlB8jps
Grounded article.
I see a lot of a reason to own Oil myself. True - the prices are now somewhat elevated so I’m not rushing all in. Small position in OXY and considering some Canadian producers. Would be much more interested if oil was around $40 though.