John Francis Donaghy said:agdaddy04 said:
You realize it's not like swapping a traditional car battery, right?
It very well could be 10 years from now. Lots of yall seem to be getting stuck on the tech that exists today. EVs aren't the answer today specifically because the tech isn't quite there yet, I don't anyone would argue that.
But think of the progress that has been made in the arena in the last decade, and there is a very real possibility that EVs will be the more practical option in another 10 years or so. A few years ago, EV range was limited to local use only and charges took 10+ hours, now Teslas can go hundreds of miles on a charge and the newest charging stations being inatalled in Europe today can hit 80% in about 15 minutes. Progress will continue to be made, and I'm a bit surprised that so many in the O&G industry on here seem so dead set on sticking their heads in the sand about a rapidly emerging technology that could severely reduce demand for one of their major products in the not-so-distent future.
Yup lithium ion is still state of the art after all these years.Ag CPA said:
The 9 volt Energizer...
Won't happen. There's a reason Tesla abandoned it after claiming a ton of extra EV credits for calling it a fast charging battery. Companies can't handle the warranty/reliability/depreciation issues of swapping batteries. They can't afford to give an old car a much newer battery via swaps and vice-versa.GBMont3 said:
I fully expect swappable batteries (not unlike propane tanks) at truck stops for the long haul trucking crowd. Vehicles must be designed for easy battery access of course and that's not the current way most passenger vehicles are going.
I'm well aware why they did it initially, but their strategy has fundamentally changed. Also market share is still not as important as price.... Especially with demand this strong. They can drop their cuts naturally over time at current prices without oversupplying the market74OA said:
If you do a quick google search on the SA decision to cut prices a couple of years ago, you'll see a common theme stating it was primarily motivated by SA's desire to defend its market share from further encroachment by what was then inefficient, expensive US shale producers. The idea was to quickly drive US shale out of business by pricing them out of the market. As we've seen since, that plan backfired as it merely culled the US energy industry of its weak sisters and compelled the rest to become far more efficient. As a result, SA is today losing both revenue due to the price cuts and market share due to US energy becoming ever more competitive.
For Example
I'm curious on this as well. Just bought some UGAZ on Friday. Hoping for a short term spike.SoupNazi2001 said:
Lots of oil price talk. What do you guys think of current natural gas prices. October is a historically bullish month. Think prices can break and hold above $3?
techno-ag said:Yup lithium ion is still state of the art after all these years.Ag CPA said:
The 9 volt Energizer...
Even Tesla's highly promoted new battery factory is going to make .... lithium ion batteries.
opium ? goats? not sure I connect the dots.fire09 said:techno-ag said:Yup lithium ion is still state of the art after all these years.Ag CPA said:
The 9 volt Energizer...
Even Tesla's highly promoted new battery factory is going to make .... lithium ion batteries.
And people wonder why we are still in Afghanistan....
The problem with this is that wireless charging uses induced magnetic fields to transfer energy. I can't even begin to imagine the magnetic field needed to charge a large number of moving vehicles. Granted, the movement of the vehicle could help that problem somewhat, but it still seems like that much induced magnetism is going to start seriously screwing with a lot of things in its vicinity.AgLA06 said:
With wireless charging technology, I could see a continuous charging system on major highways using the existing light poles and scanners they have now. Add in whatever they have to scan the easy tags to figure out drive times.
BlackGoldAg2011 said:The problem with this is that wireless charging uses induced magnetic fields to transfer energy. I can't even begin to imagine the magnetic field needed to charge a large number of moving vehicles. Granted, the movement of the vehicle could help that problem somewhat, but it still seems like that much induced magnetism is going to start seriously screwing with a lot of things in its vicinity.AgLA06 said:
With wireless charging technology, I could see a continuous charging system on major highways using the existing light poles and scanners they have now. Add in whatever they have to scan the easy tags to figure out drive times.
jbanda said:
That's not how this works OPEC
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/10/opec-calls-on-us-shale-oil-producers-to-accept-shared-responsibility.html
Quote:
"We urge our friends, in the shale basins of North America to take this shared responsibility with all seriousness it deserves, as one of the key lessons learnt from the current unique supply-driven cycle," Barkindo said.
Comeby! said:
"We urge our friends, in the shale basins of North America to take this shared responsibility with all seriousness it deserves, as one of the key lessons learnt from the current unique supply-driven cycle," Barkindo said.
Exactly. They need higher prices more than the US, as their whole economy basically is tied to oil revenues.techno-ag said:Comeby! said:
"We urge our friends, in the shale basins of North America to take this shared responsibility with all seriousness it deserves, as one of the key lessons learnt from the current unique supply-driven cycle," Barkindo said.
They should have thought about that before trying to drive shale producers out of business.
TxAg20 said:
If all U.S. operators agreed to cut production by some percentage, I wouldn't be opposed to cutting production. I'm guessing there are laws in the U.S. against that though.
TxAg20 said:
It's not hard to shut in existing wells for a few day each month. There are wells that you wouldn't want to shut it such as recently completed wells that you're trying to recover load water from, but shutting in a lot of mature production shouldn't be an issue. Many of us would sacrifice production of $50 oil today for a near-term shot at producing those same barrels for $70.
Yes, people have rig contracts and they would keep drilling. Rig count isn't the problem. It's oil inventories.
PincheDriller said:
On another note. Thoughts on Exco Resources (XCO) and the recent 8-K's filed. Thoughts on where headed?
