OPEC to cut oil production by 2m barrels per day

[Earthdweller]

OPEC announced today that it will slash oil production by 2 million barrels per day, the biggest cut since the start of the pandemic, in a move that threatens to push gasoline prices higher just weeks before US midterm elections reports CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/05/energy/opec-product...

[GroundEffect]

The sooner we get away from fossil fuels the better.

[Rivenink]

GroundEffect said:

The sooner we get away from fossil fuels the better.

Sounds like you're part of the Anti-Growth Coalition...

[av185]

Pile into Shell and BP.

[ant1973]

GroundEffect said:

The sooner we get away from fossil fuels the better.

...preferably when we have sorted intermittency,,,,,

[Terminator X]

GroundEffect said:

The sooner we get away from fossil fuels the better.

Say we did though, what would we do when the Sun don't shine or the wind don't blow?

TX.

[ant1973]

Terminator X said:

GroundEffect said:

The sooner we get away from fossil fuels the better.

Say we did though, what would we do when the Sun don't shine or the wind don't blow?

TX.

Indeed. And the main issue is the extent of the unpredictability. Averages don't matter in this game. So if the wind doesn't blow 10% of the time, but that 10% occurs in 36 consecutive days in every year, you need an entirely different energy set up for that period. Sounds expensive and inefficient to me.... unless you fancy rolling black outs (which of course many greens would say is a price worth paying).

Until they sort storage, renewables help only at the margins. It's just another political fantasy.

They have already modelled this using past data to show that the 100% renewable solution does not work.

[pork911]

ant1973 said:

Terminator X said:

GroundEffect said:

The sooner we get away from fossil fuels the better.

Say we did though, what would we do when the Sun don't shine or the wind don't blow?

TX.

Indeed. And the main issue is the extent of the unpredictability. Averages don't matter in this game. So if the wind doesn't blow 10% of the time, but that 10% occurs in 36 consecutive days in every year, you need an entirely different energy set up for that period. Sounds expensive and inefficient to me.... unless you fancy rolling black outs (which of course many greens would say is a price worth paying).

Until they sort storage, renewables help only at the margins. It's just another political fantasy.

They have already modelled this using past data to show that the 100% renewable solution does not work.

we can fight wars on the other side of the world in order to drill holes to pipe and ship oil and gas back home and tehn burn it - but we cannot solve renewables, storage (AND efficiency)?

[Electro1980]

ant1973 said:

Indeed. And the main issue is the extent of the unpredictability. Averages don't matter in this game. So if the wind doesn't blow 10% of the time, but that 10% occurs in 36 consecutive days in every year, you need an entirely different energy set up for that period. Sounds expensive and inefficient to me.... unless you fancy rolling black outs (which of course many greens would say is a price worth paying).

Until they sort storage, renewables help only at the margins. It's just another political fantasy.

They have already modelled this using past data to show that the 100% renewable solution does not work.

There is plenty of options. For a start wind and sun are not the only renewables.
Nuclear
Hydro
Geothermal
Tidal
Wave


Secondly there are new and better storage options being developed all the time:

Pumped hydro
Gravity battery
Sand battery
Hydrogen
Pumped thermal

It all exists. If we wanted we could move all energy production away from fossil fuels as fast as we could physically build. If we really wanted we could probably have it all done in 18 months. It would cost, but it could be done.

[RichTT]

GroundEffect said:

The sooner we get away from fossil fuels the better.

The sooner people realise how much we rely on fossil fuels the sooner this dumb idea that we're going to be independent from them within 50 years can end.

We have spent multiple trillions of dollars/pounds/euros on green incentives and infrastructure rollout only for our use of fossil fuels to have reduced by single digit percentage.

This mad drive to achieve the unachievable will bankrupt the nations that continue to push forward with it, along with the economies and the living standards of the populations.

Electro1980 said:

It all exists. If we wanted we could move all energy production away from fossil fuels as fast as we could physically build. If we really wanted we could probably have it all done in 18 months. It would cost, but it could be done.

No we couldn't. Have any green loonies even looked at how much rare earth minerals we produce globally a year for the production of things like solar panels and batteries? Or where the vast majority of those come from? And as for cost. Who's paying for it? Governments? Their already bankrupt. The population?

Edited by RichTT on Wednesday 5th October 17:54

[stongle]

Maybe someone who works in the industry can clear something up I read this morning.

Is the a cut in cap, or production today? They are already 3m bpd below capacity- does anyone know what this means NET? Other than to pump the price a bit?

[ant1973]

Electro1980 said:

ant1973 said:

Indeed. And the main issue is the extent of the unpredictability. Averages don't matter in this game. So if the wind doesn't blow 10% of the time, but that 10% occurs in 36 consecutive days in every year, you need an entirely different energy set up for that period. Sounds expensive and inefficient to me.... unless you fancy rolling black outs (which of course many greens would say is a price worth paying).

Until they sort storage, renewables help only at the margins. It's just another political fantasy.

They have already modelled this using past data to show that the 100% renewable solution does not work.

There is plenty of options. For a start wind and sun are not the only renewables.
Nuclear
Hydro
Geothermal
Tidal
Wave


Secondly there are new and better storage options being developed all the time:

Pumped hydro
Gravity battery
Sand battery
Hydrogen
Pumped thermal

It all exists. If we wanted we could move all energy production away from fossil fuels as fast as we could physically build. If we really wanted we could probably have it all done in 18 months. It would cost, but it could be done.

18 months? When are you standing for election

Nuclear is not renewable but is the only viable, sustainable energy source we can presently tap. How long to build one and at what cost?

Hydro is dependent on topography. The most viable sites have arleady been tapped.

Tidal\Wave is more predictable but is beset with a bucket load of issues if you read about it.

Geothermal also doesn't work at scale. Again, the US have done a tonne of research on this.

So all you have is nuclear. HP will produce 7% of electricity demand. So we need 15 or so. And then you have replacing gas demand as well. So that's quite a lot of power stations. And after they have been built, the cost is essentially sunk. Why would you want to turn them off and on around renewables?

In terms of storage, can you tell me what size of battery we would need to cover one hour of energy storage for the UK? All of the technologies you refer to are at the fledgling stage. One day, maybe. But we need these solutions today. The blind faith in "something turning up" is what Boris said.....

Hydrogen is more interesting and the most probable way forward. But again, it's a long way off.

[RichTT]

Biden has been dumping strategic oil reserves in order to maintain a lower price at the pump coming up to the mid-terms. He went cap in hand to the Saudis to get them to increase production and when they said that in the short term it's not possible so he started selling the SPR. Now that it's at levels not seen since the 80s and the price is dumping due to that and demand destruction OPEC are going to cut to create a supply restriction and drive up prices to maintain profits.

Simple.

[GroundEffect]

ant1973 said:

Terminator X said:

GroundEffect said:

The sooner we get away from fossil fuels the better.

Say we did though, what would we do when the Sun don't shine or the wind don't blow?

TX.

Indeed. And the main issue is the extent of the unpredictability. Averages don't matter in this game. So if the wind doesn't blow 10% of the time, but that 10% occurs in 36 consecutive days in every year, you need an entirely different energy set up for that period. Sounds expensive and inefficient to me.... unless you fancy rolling black outs (which of course many greens would say is a price worth paying).

Until they sort storage, renewables help only at the margins. It's just another political fantasy.

They have already modelled this using past data to show that the 100% renewable solution does not work.

I said fossil fuels. I wasn't excluding nuclear.

[stongle]

RichTT said:

Biden has been dumping strategic oil reserves in order to maintain a lower price at the pump coming up to the mid-terms. He went cap in hand to the Saudis to get them to increase production and when they said that in the short term it's not possible so he started selling the SPR. Now that it's at levels not seen since the 80s and the price is dumping due to that and demand destruction OPEC are going to cut to create a supply restriction and drive up prices to maintain profits.

Simple.

The Saudi's thumbing Biden off, and in particular on Russia is well known. What isn't clear on this one, is it a cut from current production rates (which are under by 3m bpd) or just a cut to the cap. If the later, it's a non-event; other than a bit of a spoof to drive up price per barrel. Demand is going to drop as the Central banks have created recessions to tamper inflation anyway - particularly the Fed who made no secret of anaemic growth and killing jobs/ pay growth. It feels like another media st storm when the numbers don't back it up. Unless it's a genuine 2m + the 3m they are already under - then that's a different matter. They say it's a production cut, but it's not clear at all.

This is exactly what happens when people think markets and economies are binary. This was always going to happen when the Central Banks in the main G20 countries decided to flat line growth to kill inflation.

[BoRED S2upid]

RichTT said:

Biden has been dumping strategic oil reserves in order to maintain a lower price at the pump coming up to the mid-terms. He went cap in hand to the Saudis to get them to increase production and when they said that in the short term it's not possible so he started selling the SPR. Now that it's at levels not seen since the 80s and the price is dumping due to that and demand destruction OPEC are going to cut to create a supply restriction and drive up prices to maintain profits.

Simple.

They are already high! B@stards. We’re never going to see £1 a litre ever again.

[Biggy Stardust]

Electro1980 said:

There is plenty of options. For a start wind and sun are not the only renewables.
Nuclear
Hydro
Geothermal
Tidal
Wave

How exactly is nuclear renewable? Does the uranium magically regenerate?

Please tell us.

[stongle]

Biggy Stardust said:

Electro1980 said:

There is plenty of options. For a start wind and sun are not the only renewables.
Nuclear
Hydro
Geothermal
Tidal
Wave

How exactly is nuclear renewable? Does the uranium magically regenerate?

Please tell us.

Surprised the list didn't contain pixie dust. About as likely to appear as all that lot in 18months.

There isn't a legal way possible to get us off fossils in the short to medium term.

There is a worrying trend of people who think just because they want it or believe in it; it's true and just.

Bananas.

[gazza285]

We can always dig some coal up…

[Oliver Hardy]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pe...