Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (78054)	7/6/2017 12:27:23 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Big Oil Begs Congress Not To Sanction Russia By Nick Cunningham - Jul 05, 2017, 12:11 PM CDT ExxonMobil, Chevron and other oil majors are lobbying the U.S. Congress not to move forward with legislation that would slap new sanctions on Russia over the latter’s interference in the U.S. presidential election last year. The U.S. Senate passed the bill by an overwhelming 98-2 vote, a shocking display of unity for Republicans and Democrats given their inability to agree on much of anything. Because of that nearly unanimous vote, the bill was expected to sail through the House of Representatives and become law, but the House is more divided on the issue. The issue is complex for the President, who would see his power curtailed by Congress. The bill would downgrade the President’s authority to remove the Russian sanctions, putting greater power in the hands of the Congress. President Trump could try to veto the legislation if it is sent to his desk, and that is possible due to President Trump’s softer stance towards Russia. But it would also be a politically fraught move in light of the ongoing investigation into Russia’s role in the election. But it is not clear that the bill will even make it through the House. It has faced some resistance among lawmakers from Texas, who represent the energy industry. That is because the legislation tightens the limits on oil companies investing and working in Russia. A spokesman for ExxonMobil said that the bill could “disadvantage U.S. companies compared to our non-U.S. counterparts.” Exxon had a billion-dollar project on the line in the Russian Arctic, in which they partnered with Russian oil giant Rosneft, that they were forced to abandon in 2014 when the initial U.S. sanctions were imposed. Exxon is also working with Rosneft on a project in Russia’s Far East on the island of Sakhalin. The proposed legislation would bar such joint ventures with Russian companies and it would go further than existing sanctions by prohibiting cooperation with Russian firms even outside of Russia. The intention with the bill is to tighten the screws on Russia – by prohibiting U.S. involvement with Russian companies outside of Russia, the legislation would seek to inhibit Rosneft’s expansion around the world. The tougher approach from the U.S. is indeed giving a leg up to their European counterparts in regard to investing in Russia. Companies like BP – which owns a sizable stake in Rosneft – Total SA, Statoil, Eni and Royal Dutch Shell are moving ahead with projects in Russia while U.S. companies are frozen out. Austrian oil company OMV told the FT a few weeks ago that they have not been held back by European sanctions on Russia. “We have made millions of legal checks, and the message is clear we are in full compliance with the sanctions,” OMV CEO Rainer Seele told the FT. One particular difference is that projects underway when sanctions were imposed were “grandfathered in.” Eni, for example, was allowed to proceed with a Black Sea oil project with Rosneft since it began years ago, the FT says. French oil giant Total has massive investments on the line in an LNG project on Russia’s Yamal Peninsula. And just this week Spanish oil company Repsol announced a joint venture with Gazprom for a project in West Siberia. However, even European firms could be swept up in the proposed U.S. legislation. The bill would have an impact on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a major and controversial natural gas pipeline from Russia to Germany via the Baltic Sea. The U.S. legislation would sanction companies investing in Russian energy pipelines. Germany supports Nord Stream 2, and German officials had some sharp words for American lawmakers last month when the Senate passed its version of the bill. “Europe’s energy supply is a matter for Europe, not the United States of America,’’ German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern said in a joint statement in mid-June. Against this backdrop, U.S. President Donald Trump will travel to Warsaw on Thursday for the “Three Seas” summit, a meeting of European countries that border the Adriatic, Baltic and Black Seas. Trump will promote U.S. LNG as a means to bolster European energy security. Whether or not he mentions the pipeline explicitly, the message for European policymakers is clear: ditch the Nord Stream 2 expansion and take imported American gas instead of Russian gas. That message will be welcomed by some in Eastern Europe, but it is not at all clear it will win over those already in favor of Nord Stream 2. And the legislation before the U.S. Congress, if it moves forward, will strain the already tense U.S.-German relationship. oilprice.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (78054)	7/6/2017 1:26:42 PM
From: Eric	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Nope Just not going to happen as more and more surface transportation is electrified. Fossil fuels are just too dirty and inefficient. The pollution "jig" is up.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (78054)	7/6/2017 1:37:10 PM
From: Eric	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

News Tesla Semi-truck has buyers lined up, says Musk – “How many and how soon?” By Christian Prenzler Posted on June 6, 2017 The Tesla Semi-truck is on its way, and apparently buyers are already waiting to purchase the truck. Musk revealed more information about the upcoming truck at Tuesday’s 2017 Tesla Shareholder meeting. Recently, researchers claimed that the truck wouldn’t be able to provide long range hauling capabilities without having a massive payload of batteries. Musk refuted those claims today at the shareholder meeting. “A lot of people don’t think you can do a heavy duty long-range truck that is electric. But, we are confident that this can be done,” Musk said. The semi-truck is set to be unveiled in September and Musk said that it’s an event that you don’t want to miss. Elon Musk revealed new details on the Tesla Semi and Model Y Compact SUV at Tesla’s 2017 Shareholder Meeting Tesla has been meeting with several heavy-duty trucking companies while working on the Tesla Semi prototype that can be driven like a “sports car” and has involved them in the design process. “We have shown it to a number of heavy-duty trucking companies, and they just want to know how many can they buy, and how soon,” Musk said while shareholders applauded. “We are getting them closely involved in the design process. They already know that it is going to meet their needs, because they told us what those needs are.” Tesla’s truck program is being led by Jerome Guillen, VP of Trucks and Programs, who has been at Tesla since 2012. Guillen previously worked at Diamler and was General Manager of New Product Development at Freightliner Trucks. He has been working on the semi-truck at Tesla for the past year and a half, and previously was the Model S Program Director and VP of Worldwide Sales and Service While there is a still a great deal of unknown around the semi-truck, Musk’s remarks provided more color to the current state of the program. Any investor’s worries about the program should now be eliminated, “It’s really a question of scaling volume to make as many (semi-trucks) as we can,” Musk said. teslarati.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (78054)	7/6/2017 8:59:04 PM
From: miraje	1 Recommendation Recommended By lightshipsailor Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

The Global Oil Demand Driver That Is Being Ignored The oil price guy who wrote that article might know about oil, but he doesn't know much about the trucking industry (which I've been professionally involved in for almost 30 years). The first area is logistics and operations, which means using things like GPS to “optimize truck routing,” improve supply chain efficiencies so that trucks are carrying heavier loads and making fewer empty trips. Trucking companies and independents already "optimize routing" as much as possible. Fuel costs money and the most efficient routing minimizes consumption (and cost). Also, no trucking outfit wants to "run empty" and deadheading is avoided whenever possible. As for "heavier loads", there are strict weight limits for big rigs and there are plenty of cops and scale houses to ensure they aren't exceeded. Big fines for going over weight. autonomous trucks fall into this category. I could give half a dozen reasons why there will always be a human in the cab. Some sort of autopilot being engaged on a wide open Interstate is about the most that could be safely accomplished (along with a driver on board). No R2D2 will ever be able to handle unexpected emergencies, blowouts, breakdowns or chaining up on a snowy mountain pass. As for said robot dealing with detours, lane restrictions or maneuvering through busy inner city streets, not to mention carrying hazardous materials, forget about it. the trucking fleet could use aerodynamic retrofits to reduce drag. Already in use, whenever possible, on the tractor and the trailer(s). Drag reduces mileage and reduced mileage means higher fuel costs and lower profits. The reason that trailers are box shaped is that it's the only way to maximize load carrying capacity. If trucks were shaped like most of the boring new jelly bean cars on the road today, they couldn't carry nearly as much cargo. Lighter materials, better engines, transmissions and drivetrains can all boost fuel economy. Fine and dandy, but it's always going to take x amount of energy to move 80,000 lbs down the road, and heavy haulers can be licensed for well over 100,000.. There is also potential for hybrid and even zero-emissions trucks. Maybe CNG now or fuel cells someday, but hydrogen needs to be "made" before it can used as fuel, and making it requires energy. As for battery powered big rigs (Eric's fantasy, I'm sure), don't make me laugh. You'd need half the weight and cargo capacity of the truck, just to lug them around. Not gonna happen. the IEA says that governments need to focus on several areas: Fuel economy standards; support for the improved use of data for supply chain management; and policies to promote alternative fuels, including R&D, market uptake and refueling infrastructure. Yada yada yada.. What the government needs to do is to get the hell out of the way and let the market drive efficiency, which it is always best at doing..