Post New

Fair warning. This is a really long post. I propose why BRK should consider buying XOM even at current prices. I use new data plus recap the steps taken and results achieved by XOM since 2017YE to buttress this. Data is from the updated XOM corporate plan released on Dec. 11, 2024. If this isn't of interest, save your time.

************

For the last two days I’ve spent hours both listening to and studying XOM’s updated plans. I truly hope that someone in the Warren, Ted, Todd, and Abel investment mix has been doing the same. Or, at least, has someone assigned to doing so.

Why? Because XOM is one of the seemingly very few companies where BRK could invest large sums of cash without really moving the market. And feel pretty confident that – on a risk adjusted basis – it would yield long term returns superior to just holding cash and waiting for a market crash. It may well be true that waiting is still the better strategy.

Buffett has made clear that his investments in OXY and CVX are basically bets on oil prices. I think he really understands the macro factors that impact oil prices – and their cyclic nature. And he also understands how that can impact the earnings of traditional O&G suppliers. But his investment style doesn't put much weight on future projections.

What I fear Warren et. al. may not understand is what XOM has done to be able to prosper through these price cycles. And how much it has changed over the past seven years as a corporation. The theme of XOM’s corporate plan presentation this year is “A League of Its Own.” It is now a very different corporation than other major O&G companies.

This year’s plan presentation goes into the reasons behind this claim. And presents an unprecedented level of detail about the specific projects that result in their financial outlook. An Exxon friend and I were somewhat shocked in early 2018 when XOM first took steps to better inform and influence Wall Street about its plans and goals. This was very different from XOM’s past. They used to basically POPO (Piss On and Pass Over) Wall Street with lower level presenters and limited details. Darren Woods decided to change that in 2018 with specific data and top level presenters. Now this has been taken to another level.

The earnings and cash flow growth outlooks are a huge bonus versus cash. They expect to grow earnings 9-10% a year and achieve a 17% ROCE by 2030. That’s an additional $20 billion in earnings and $30 billion in cash flow. And, at $55 Brent Crude over the cycle, they will deliver $110 billion total in cash flow beyond capex and dividends. (You’ve got to listen to get this number). At $65 Brent crude, it $165 billion.

They’re now buying back $20 billion a year of stock – and expect to sustain that unless oil prices crash below $55 Brent crude. Their breakeven oil price now is $35 Brent crude, and they see that going down to $30 by 2030. They have reduced net Debt/Equity to circa 5% and have strengthened the balance sheet to rebuild borrowing capacity if needed. They are prepared to continue their major projects - plus shareholder rewards - through the bottom of the cycle.

(Memo: During the Pandemic crisis, XOM went to extraordinary levels of cost cutting to not cut the dividend. Many layoffs, no bonuses, no contributions to savings plans, hit their limit on debt, etc. It was a close call, but demonstrated their commitment to preserving (and growing) the dividend. They’ve now done so for 40+ years)

At XOM’s stock price as I type ($112) it has a 13 P/E, a forward dividend yield of 3.54%, and a total yield with buybacks of 7.19%. Add growth potential to this, and one has a pretty good margin of safety over cash, even risk adjusted. And doesn’t BRK get tax breaks on dividends versus interest?

The plan presentation is available at https://investor.exxonmobil.com/ under Events.

I’m not going to attempt to summarize the Corporate Plan. Rather, I’m going to try to discuss the changes in XOM as a corporation since early 2018. It all begins with Darren Woods as CEO.

Woods became CEO on Jan. 1, 2017. In the 2018 Plan presentation, he said he spent a lot of time during 2017 meeting with Wall Street people and shareholders. He became convinced that XOM was doing the right things but that they were poorly understood by Wall Street and the public. He decided to change that when the updated Corporate Plan was approved and presented in early 2018. And he led the presentation together with the rest of senior management. That demonstrated respect for the analysts.

They presented the plan in greater detail than the past as mentioned earlier. Then came the Q&A session and Woods took a lot of heat from the analysts. The major issue was about XOM continuing to spend capex on major new projects while other O&G companies were cutting capex and focusing on dividends and buybacks. After a good deal of back-and-forth with the analysts, Darren finally said: “Because these are better opportunities than the businesses we now have!!! Why should I spend money on XOM stock and not develop high return projects?”

Then the questions became “Why should we believe these outlooks? For years XOM has talked about increasing O&G production, and yet it’s gone down instead.” Woods stuck to his guns, saying doing these projects were better for the shareholders in the long run. Also that XOM would be the operator in circa 85% of projects. Previously, a lot of the projects were operated by other – and slowed down.

The major projects were Guyana, LNG, Brazil, and an integrated investment in the Permian Basin. The latter included not only production but also refinery expansion and a world-scale new polyethylene plant in Corpus Christi plus associated midstream investments to move the products to downstream and distribution. There were also specific smaller investments to install new process technology in Europe and Singapore.

Time has proven that these were correct decisions. Brazil drilling yielded results that were not competitive with the other projects and fell off the plans list. But the others all succeeded well above expectations. For example, Guyana was originally thought to have circa 3.5 billion oil equivalent barrels of new reserves. Now it is above 11 billion, and continues to grow. The Permian expanded project has happened. All targets were achieved. The refinery expansion at Beaumont was very successful, and the Corpus Christi facilities are coming on line. With the recent acquisition of Pioneer, XOM is now the largest producer in the Permian. It was the earlier success and technology advancements with the Delaware basin acreage bought from the Bass brothers that justified the Pioneer acquisition.

The 2018 plan laid out aggressive targets for reducing costs. These have been exceeded. By 2024YE, XOM will have reduced operating costs across the corporation by $11 billion on track to meet the original $15 billion by 2027. This has now been raised to $18 billion by 2030.

XOM has significantly outperformed other major international O&G companies for the past several years. It is now acknowledged that Woods made the right decisions. The major projects in the 2025 corporate plan are still the same as those outlined in early 2018.

It is this performance that forms the reason to believe the new 2025 plan projections.

Perhaps of longer term importance, Woods has completely reorganized XOM. When he took over, the company’s operations were “siloed” along traditional lines. There was an Upstream business, a Refining business, and a Chemicals business. Each had its own Technology organization and its own business support functions. There was also a separate Corporate Research function – all reporting to HQ. HQ was basically a holding company.

This is no longer true. All Technology organizations have been combined into one Technology function. All business support functions – accounting, purchasing, law, etc. – plus Project Management have been combined into single organizations. HQ has been closed, and senior management moved to the XOM complex just outside of Houston. There are now three operating functions – Upstream, Product Solutions (including Low Carbon Ventures) that report upwards to Woods and 3 senior VP’s – Upstream, Product Solutions, and basically Financial & Support.

ExxonMobil is now an operating company – top to bottom. The Product Solutions managers manage all aspects of their sector from the source to delivery to the customer.

The most immediate benefits of this reorganization has been the ability to reduce operating costs by combining functions. But perhaps the more important result has been greater synergies and flexibility. Combining the functions has permitted greatly enhanced learning by sharing best practices from each previous separate organization. And these now form standard practices and processes across all aspects of XOM. Also, there is now much greater flexibility to move resources to achieve the most important objectives. Almost all data is on a common basis. Soon all will be. This will greatly enhance the ability to use AI as one example.

Woods has also redefined what XOM is as a corporation. Now it is a technology company that converts hydrocarbon molecules (and other – e.g. lithium) into useful products that serve the needs of society in a reliable manner at an acceptable value to both customers and shareholders.

This different mindset is actually quite important. For example, Refining is no longer an operation to primarily separate and transform oil into fuels and feedstock. Now it Manufacturing, serving the needs of all product end uses. There are plans to convert units to other end uses as needed. “Refining” will not go away – it will just do more and different things.

There are exciting new product development outlined in the new Corporate Plan. Proxxima is a new epoxy material that is twice as strong as steel and 75% lighter. It has many potential applications from replacing steel rods in construction to auto bodies. It is made from molecules that formerly went into gasoline. Carbon Materials is a new graphite that can increase both the capacity and reduce the charging time of batteries by 30% each. Another new carbon product is a lightweight product that is used in Permian Basin frac operations that improves recoveries, especially in very long horizonal wells. All have large potential markets. But these are a subject for another day.

Read and listen to the plan. I hope BRK does. An XOM investment would not solve BRK’s challenge to reinvest cash. But it could help in a significant manner.

TexIrish,

Great post. You might want to email/ write Buffett. He has been known to reply to some of them.

Thank you TexIrish. This is a great post. Insightful and well written to the point.

I agree, you should send to Omaha. I think you are onto something. With such a small universe for Berkshire these days, they have no doubt looked at it and your commentary may be of interest, as it’s obvious you have experience and deep knowledge of the company, combined with a strong sense of what’s good for shareholders.

I’m going to look into proxxima…that would be incredible if commercially viable at scale and of course anything battery technology related is always interesting. I always remember Buffett talking about the uses of oil years ago and how it’s used in so many things, people often don’t realise, like carpet. It’s wonderful to hear about these engineers coming up with more and more important uses. Munger was always so impressed with this kind of thing and I am too.

“Proxxima is a new epoxy material that is twice as strong as steel and 75% lighter. It has many potential applications from replacing steel rods in construction to auto bodies. It is made from molecules that formerly went into gasoline. Carbon Materials is a new graphite that can increase both the capacity and reduce the charging time of batteries by 30% each.”

Texirish

Thank you for the detailed post. Yes, XOM has made changes over the last several years, but so have its competitors. Is XOM a better long term purchase than CVX which BRK currently holds?

XOM dividend is 3.54% The buy back of $20B/year is about 4% of marketcap

CVX dividend is 4.1%. The buy back of $17.5B/ year is about 6% of marketcap

Earnings as a percent of revenue are about 10% for both companies.

XOM capex for 2025 is about twice the capex for Chevron. It seems that Chevron was in front of XOM in capex and is now slowing down.

OPEC has about 4M to 5M bbls/day idle. Russia has about 1M bbls/day if sanctions are lifted which would be expected with a cease fire.

The question on my mind is whether XOM aggressive capital expenditure going to reap the projected rewards?

Aussi, a long term holder of XOM who hasn't seen much appreciation in his account since 2007

...and if positive on oil&gas, it leads to an obvious question whether much better options exist in smaller companies.
seems a bunch using any\all of warren's preferred metrics, including c-suite quality.

Texirish, thank you for your excellent post. If I may, I would add one more point of comparison between XOM, CVX and OXY, and that is price. I would suggest that a simple and meaningful price metric for comparison is enterprise value to proven reserves. Notwithstanding significant assets in production facilities, pipelines, ships, etc., the bulk of the value for these asset-rich companies lies in proven reserves. As of today the enterprise value (EV) to proven reserves of these three companies are:

CVX, $27/barrel of oil equivalent (boe)
XOM, #28/boe
OXY, $20/boe

The EV/proven reserves for major oil and gas producers varies quite a lot, given differences in extraction cost (deep water, tar sands, etc), geopolitical risk and other factors, so the above ratios need to be put into that context. Nevertheless, EV/proven reserves is a good starting point for comparison of similar companies.

Thanks for the detailed analysis. I don't know that much about XOM in spite of the fact that my wife worked for them, and my uncle was president of Mobil.

In my simplistic view, I figure XOM is cheap when it is priced the same as a barrel of oil. I also assume that as you say, they will defend the dividend-- my uncle always said, that is company culture. I backed up the truck when oil and XOM were in the $30 range in 2020, and dividends were near 10%. I sold when oil was in the $80 range, with XOM lagging a bit. I sold too soon but did fine.

Currently there is a big gap, XOM at 110 and oil at 71. I worry that XOM is not the only company bringing production up and costs down. People like Tex tend to be good at what they do, and a glut is a possibility if we see slowdown in China, cars keep getting more efficient, and the middle east doesn't meltdown.

>Fair warning. This is a really long post.

Long posts are what Shrewd'm readers like, and part of what differentiates Shrewd'm from other message boards.

I encourage others to write expansive post more often and you'll find the readers agree.

Selected for next week's Post of the Week.

- Manlobbi

BRK can do better. Stationary storage battery prices were down twenty five percent this year. Don't know what the number was for solar but prices will continue to drop. Car battery prices were down 50%. Looks to me like it's a declining business - at most stable - over the next ten or twenty years. I spend $10 to go 216 miles in my electric pickup. People are going to switch.


XOM is not the low cost producer in a commodity business. Not a position of strength. Sucks up capital. Can they raise prices without losing customers? Nope.


Defending a 3.43 percent dividend is not something that gets me excited. Share buybacks just means you have no better use for the capital. 13X earnings is not cheap unless you can grow the business over time.


Having management engage with analysts is fine but it doesn't affect the value of the company. Sounds like promotion rather than education. All I do is napkin math, but it looks like a cigar butt to me.

”CVX, $27/barrel of oil equivalent (boe)
XOM, #28/boe
OXY, $20/boe”

So based on this, XOM is twice more expensive than CVX, and cvx is 4x more expensive than OXY?

“The average electric car kWh per 100 miles kWh/100 miles) is 34.6. This works out as 0.346kWh per mile. "

https://www.gencellenergy.com/resources/blog/ev-ch....

In Massachusetts, electricity rate including delivery is about 30 cents/kWh, so 100 miles would cost 0.3*34.6 = $10.38. Most combustion sedans have average driving distance of 30 miles/gallon, 100 miles would cost 3.3 gallon and $10 with $3/gallon price. There is no saving on fuel cost with EV in the United States. That's very different in China, where electricity rate is about 1/3 of that in the US while fuel is about 30-50% more expensive than the US. That's the main reason EVs are fast growing in China.

“In Massachusetts, electricity rate including delivery is about 30 cents/kWh, so 100 miles would cost 0.3*34.6 = $10.38. Most combustion sedans have average driving distance of 30 miles/gallon, 100 miles would cost 3.3 gallon and $10 with $3/gallon price. There is no saving on fuel cost with EV in the United States. That's very different in China, where electricity rate is about 1/3 of that in the US while fuel is about 30-50% more expensive than the US. That's the main reason EVs are fast growing in China.”

You’re overpaying in MA. We pay less than half that in OH.
Our EV gets better than 30 kWh/100 miles. $0.15*30 = $4.50

Sure, gas is very cheap in the US. Right now, at least.

"You’re overpaying in MA. We pay less than half that in OH.
Our EV gets better than 30 kWh/100 miles. $0.15*30 = $4.50"

That's the rate I thought it's and salesman quoted until I actually looked at the electricity bill. The quote usually doesn't include delivery cost. You could be right about the rate in OH but I would suggest you check the electricity bill first.

You’re overpaying in MA. We pay less than half that in OH.
Our EV gets better than 30 kWh/100 miles. $0.15*30 = $4.50


It's not because of the fuel price that people are rejecting EVs. It is the inconvenience of having to continually charge the darned thing, and the short range between charges.



Sure, gas is very cheap in the US. Right now, at least.

I can remember paying close to $5/gal for gas, and *still* most people wouldn't buy an EV.

That's the rate I thought it's and salesman quoted until I actually looked at the electricity bill. The quote usually doesn't include delivery cost. You could be right about the rate in OH but I would suggest you check the electricity bill first.

I just looked at my last electric bill. In addition to the Energy Charge other line items are TO/RTO Energy Cost Adj, Service Availability Charge, and state & county tax.

Total it comes to $0.11074 per KWH. Woo Hoo! Takes some of the sting out of having to have electric heat.

"Total it comes to $0.11074 per KWH. "
That's very good rate.

Here is a link to an online post about delivery charge in Mass.

https://www.reddit.com/r/massachusetts/comments/16...

“It's not because of the fuel price that people are rejecting EVs. It is the inconvenience of having to continually charge the darned thing, and the short range between charges.”

We didn’t buy an EV to get lower running costs - that was just a happy accident. We bought it because we liked driving it. 65k miles in 3.5 years later we still enjoy driving it, and it’s cost 4 tires, a new windshield and cheap electricity.

Charging is very convenient - just plug it in when you get home. In the morning it’s full again. Range is not an issue. We have four gas powered cars to choose from for longer trips.

More on topic - oil has uses beyond burning it in vehicles. We will be extracting it well beyond my children’s lifetimes.

In Massachusetts, electricity rate including delivery is about 30 cents/kWh, so 100 miles would cost 0.3*34.6 = $10.38. Most combustion sedans have average driving distance of 30 miles/gallon, 100 miles would cost 3.3 gallon and $10 with $3/gallon price. There is no saving on fuel cost with EV in the United States.

A few points:
1. Average electricity cost in USA is not 30 cents/kWh, it is closer to 15 cents/kWh.
2. Most ICE sedans do NOT get a real-life 30 mi/gal.
3. Comparable performance ICE sedans get less than 20 mi/gal in the real world.

My personal experience is -
* Previous ICE sport sedan - got about 50 miles out of $10 of gasoline.
* Current EV sport sedan - get over 250 miles out of $10 of electricity at home (50 weeks/yr).
* Current EV sport sedan - get about 110 miles out of $10 of electricity on the road (2 weeks/yr)

Also -
Previous ICE sedan - rarely got free gasoline, only when redeeming points or discounts.
Current EV sedan - get free charging all the time, at the supermarket, at the movie theater, at TopGolf, at two of the hotels I stayed at last summer, at city hall, at the courthouse, etc.

Great post

NO BRAINER right now to buy XOM

I can remember paying close to $5/gal for gas, and *still* most people wouldn't buy an EV.

I don’t think that’s true. If you had said “ Some people wouldn’t” then I would agree, because there are always some who are recalcitrant, but the experience in other countries where the prices have been normalized via subsidies and convenience argue otherwise.

I just completed a visit to a buddy in Kentucky. While there I stayed in a Holiday Inn which offered 4 EV charging stations. I went from my house (solar charging: free) to the Holiday Inn in one three hour trip and charged overnight (free) before visiting him. We drove around all day, I dropped him off, went back to the Holiday Inn and charged overnight (free) and came all the way home in one leg and charged via solar. (Free).

My ICE costs for gas would have been around $100, but instead were $0.

The fact that I fouud the ride quieter an more enjoyable was a side benefit, instead I will replace about $2,000 a year in gas costs with maybe $100 in on-the-road charging. My maintenance costs for the 10,000 miles so far has been: refill the windshield washer fluid.

At some point people realize a better value. It took a while to adopt microwave ovens from gas, color televisions from b&w, and cassette tapes from 8-track, but eventually it happened. So will this, at least for most. (Yes, there will always be a few edge cases where it doesn’t make sense, but mostly - it does.)

Current EV sedan - get free charging all the time, at the supermarket, at the movie theater, at TopGolf, at two of the hotels I stayed at last summer, at city hall, at the courthouse, etc.

This can only happen when EVs are rare. If EVs are a significant percentage of all cars, there will no longer be free charging. 100 EVs wanting to charge at 4 chargers at a movie theater won't work.

"Current EV sedan - get free charging all the time, at the supermarket, at the movie theater, at TopGolf, at two of the hotels I stayed at last summer, at city hall, at the courthouse, etc."

Who paid for the electricity? The government or business?

Who paid for the electricity? The government or business?

I think the customers of the business "giving away" free electricity pay for it by paying a little bit more for everything else the business sells. There are few truly free lunches.

That's the rate I thought it's and salesman quoted until I actually looked at the electricity bill. The quote usually doesn't include delivery cost. You could be right about the rate in OH but I would suggest you check the electricity bill first.

Checked our November bill.
Electricity total charges: $175.22 (Delivery was $94.33 of that)
Electricity usage: 1182.54 kWh
14.8c/kWh

Good to look because I didn't realize we had peak and off-peak rates. About 800kWh was off-peak.

It's not because of the fuel price that people are rejecting EVs. It is the inconvenience of having to continually charge the darned thing, and the short range between charges.

This is the common perception among most Americans that have not experienced an EV in their every day lives. For a non home owner it could be accurate if they do not have the ability to charge at their home. However, for the vast majority of the american home owning population i think they would be quite surprised at the convenience of EV ownership. I also believe it was a huge mistake for manufacturers to put EVs in the rental car fleets because the hotel charging infrastructure is massively lacking making many first EV experiences very poor.

We have owned two different EVs now over the last 7 years and we have no desire to buy another internal combustion engine vehicle. Our current EV can go 250+ real world miles in most weather conditions. No one really considers how few times a year they actually drive further than that in a day and for us it turns out it is very few times and typically on a weekend and/or holiday week. Once our current aging gas powered Toyota is due for replacement we will buy a second EV and not own any internal combustion vehicles (exception for a nice classic). Should we have the need to drive more than 300-400 miles in a day that would be a bit of an inconvenience in an EV, we would simply rent something or fly.

We rarely think about the cost advantage of electricity vs gas anymore because the sheer convenience of charging at home and virtually zero maintenance makes EV ownership (for us) a no brainer. Our all in pricing for our electricity (monthly connection fee + transport fee + generation and fuel costs) runs right at $0.14/kwh. Our current EV is a truck and we average just over 2mi/Kwh so cost is ~$0.07/mi for electricity. I think it would be difficult to find any half ton truck that would average over 25-30mpg to get close to $0.10/mi at current fuel prices in the US.

EVs don't make sense for many use cases and personal situations but they can for a large portion of the population. Keep an open mind. Whether it's combustable hydrocarbons, steam, or excited electrons it's all just stored potential energy to propel our meat carcasses where we want to go.

Jeff

“EVs don't make sense for many use cases and personal situations but they can for a large portion of the population. Keep an open mind.”

Nice post. I’m trying to be more open-minded and have a couple friends who have EVs (Teslas), but most of my friend group (90+%) still have ICE vehicles. Most EV owners seem pretty happy. None have needed a new battery yet, but they may not wait that long!

I’ve got an old 2008 Toyota SUV with 265K miles which I fill up every couple weeks for $60-70 and spend $1-2K/ year on service at a nearby dealership who provide loaners, so fortunately I don’t feel much financial pinch there.

I think we would be open to a Hybrid than EV for now. My buddy headed to the beach (7 hours) with a colleague in a Tesla S & they needed to stop on the way for nearly an hour to recharge. I have also heard one often has to install a special home charger for optimal charging, correct? I’ve seen a few concerning news reports, mainly in the frigid Midwest, where the EVs struggled did not handle the extreme cold well.

For sure, we are all products of our environment as well so as we understand EVs and they become more prevalent with friends and neighbors, we might consider one down the road.

I think the customers of the business "giving away" free electricity pay for it by paying a little bit more for everything else the business sells. There are few truly free lunches.

Who pays for the 3% that VISA and MasterCard, and the 4% that American Express charge for the convenience of using their plastic instead of good ole’ reliable cash?

Businesses use a variety of strategies to attract business. Not every customer gets treated perfectly equally. Some days I buy milk, only to find that there was a coupon in their app that would have saved me a dime.

Oh well. If this is the big objection I suggest you look around at all the other ways you are being gypped. I suspect “free EV charging at a movie theater” will rank somewhere below #100.

A few points:
1. Average electricity cost in USA is not 30 cents/kWh, it is closer to 15 cents/kWh.
2. Most ICE sedans do NOT get a real-life 30 mi/gal.
3. Comparable performance ICE sedans get less than 20 mi/gal in the real world.

My personal experience is -
* Previous ICE sport sedan - got about 50 miles out of $10 of gasoline.
* Current EV sport sedan - get over 250 miles out of $10 of electricity at home (50 weeks/yr).


And then there are places, most states in the USA if I understand correctly, that have cheaper rates off peak, and charging your EV is a great way to take advantage of those rates. In Ontario, for instance, peak rates are 15.8c (about 10c in US$), but overnight rates are less than half that, at 7.6 c (about 5c USD), one third the average USA rate. And in Quebec, with mostly fixed rates around the clock, most houses get 6.5c per kWh (about 4c in US$). Canada has some of the lowest electricity rates in the world, and much higher gasoline taxes, so if EV cars make economic sense anywhere, it is in Canada, except maybe in the dead of winter (i.e. many months a year :(

My experience with a hybrid and now a fully electric car is that I don't really save much on energy, because I don't drive enough kilometres, but the things I love with electric cars are the quiet, the quick acceleration, the full charge every morning, and the simplicity of maintenance. Plus, when I make fun of the completely unrealistic expectations of people who think we can substantially reduce global fossil fuel use, I can honestly say it is not because I have any nostalgia for burning fossil fuel, just that the economics of replacing it don't make any sense for most people (except possible if we drop our objections to nuclear power and build out that sector massively, which most green nuts ALSO oppose.)

dtb

Most EV owners seem pretty happy. None have needed a new battery yet, but they may not wait that long!

Actually it turns out that the battery will outlive the body of the car in most cases. There will be some minor degradation of range (plus or minus 10%) but not of acceleration or braking, and 15 years later those EVs will still be perking along. Then those “old” batteries will turn into house or community battery backups, as is already being done on a limited scale. (I talked with one guy repping a company which is doing so in Appalachian communities, taking available “regular” current and turning it via used EV batteries into “stored energy” for outages and super current needs. Will this effort succeed? Dunno, but it’s one example I found interesting.)

An AI summary I just asked for says: “ Electric vehicle (EV) batteries are expected to last 100,000 to 200,000 miles, or about 15 to 20 years.” Sykesix, who percolates these boards from time to time, has an older EV (a Bolt or a Volt, I think) who occasionally comments that it’s running fine. Perhaps he will chime in with some reality based news here.

PS: I am a big advocate of EVs for those for whom it makes sense, which is a lot of people. I also own a good slug of XOM and CHV, among other fossils. EVs and oil will coexist nicely, I’m quite sure.

And then there are places, most states in the USA if I understand correctly, that have cheaper rates off peak, and charging your EV is a great way to take advantage of those rates. In Ontario, for instance, peak rates are 15.8c (about 10c in US$), but overnight rates are less than half that, at 7.6 c (about 5c USD), one third the average USA rate.

FWIW, I have never lived in a place where we had off-peak rates. It was always just straight price per KWH.

But, just like the free charging at stores & theaters, that only can be the case when EVs are a tiny minority of cars. If EVs become a substantial portion of cars which are charging at night, then what is currently off-peak will be very much ON-peak.

Assuming the neighborhood power lines can support the load. Which mostly won't be the case.

The availability of electricity and grid capacity are major issues which most EV proponents ignore and/or poo-poo.

I have also heard one often has to install a special home charger for optimal charging, correct?

I think that depends on a number of issues:
* Is the electric car your only car?
* What is the charge capacity of the car?
* How far do you drive on a typical day?

We have been driving a Leaf since 2015. We charge via a standard 120 volt outlet - no special installation. But we typically drive less than 20 miles a day. Also, we have an ICE car as back-up and for out-of-the-city trips. Our Leaf had a 90 mile range when we got it, now it's about 70 miles. But we try to not fully charge it, to prolong the battery life. Each hour of charge adds about 5 miles to the range, so we need to charge about 3 hours per day, on average.

We would be fine driving only ICEs, if necessary. But given our experiences, we have a preference for EVs. Here's why (in order)
* No trips to the gas station. Much prefer just plugging in at home.
* No maintenance, just tires.
* Smooth, quiet ride and responsive. Umph when you need it.
* Heater is electric, so it heats up in about 1 minute. Nice on a cold day.

We were considering buying a used LEAF after Scotty the youtube car guy said they were a fun car and pretty cheap. But the best price we could find was $10,000 for a 2017.
That was too much for a toy runabout.
Also, 4 owners in 4 years. Huh? Why?

For us, shopping is 32 miles south or 34 miles east. Round trip 64-68 miles. Plus whatever miles from store to store in town. 70 mile range wouldn't cut it. Even 90 mile range would be nail-biting.

I wonder how much range would get cut with running the AC or heat. AC is the big one, it regularly gets to 90-100 degrees in the summer.

We could get a used Mini for $12,000-$13,000. That's another fun toy runabout.

I wonder how much range would get cut with running the AC or heat.

In our 2015 Leaf, turning on the AC or heat reduces the range by about 5%. But we use the heat pretty judiciously. With heated car seats and steering wheel a cabin temp in the high 50s is comfortable.

Another thing we like about our electric car - we experience power outages pretty regularly, maybe 3-4 times a year, and usually one of those lasts 12+ hours. We can use our car to power internet, lights, refrigerator, and run the fan on our gas fireplace. Can't power the AC, though. We charge the car to 100% before storms, which can power our house for a few days.

John

Tex, Such a great post and such great responses. Thank you. Coupla observations:

"It's not because of the fuel price that people are rejecting EVs. It is the inconvenience of having to continually charge the darned thing, and the short range between charges." Agreed. The solution is for the government to limit the size of ICE gas tanks to 8 gal lol.

"If EVs are a significant percentage of all cars, there will no longer be free charging. 100 EVs wanting to charge at 4 chargers at a movie theater won't work." Also agreed. Think of all the business that Pilot will make on this until the infrastructure catches up.

Happy holidays!

abromber

FWIW, I have never lived in a place where we had off-peak rates. It was always just straight price per KWH.

Ah, but your utility certainly has “peak costs” and “off peak costs”. They just haven’t bothered to unbundle it so you could get a peek behind the curtain. Every utility has base-load, generation which doesn’t change easily: hydro from dams, or perhaps electrons from nuclear. But there are intermediate load sources like coal plants and peak load sources like gas turbines, and all that has to be balanced against demand, because too little and your home goes dark. Too much and they fry their transformers. It costs money to scale up - and start up - and bring down those intermediate and peak load generators, which is why they don’t run overnight or in other low demand times.

Perhaps they will adopt a system whereby you can manage your costs, or perhaps they won’t. No matter. You still are ahead with electrons over hydrocarbons. You’re just far more ahead with off-peak electrons, and it’s difficult to find significantly cheaper gas.

Assuming the neighborhood power lines can support the load. Which mostly won’t be the case.”

Ah, but the neighborhood power lines are operating at far less than half capacity overnight, so the utilities could deliver more power to more homes without changing the infrastructure a whit. They would do so, of course, by offering “off peak” rates to encourage people to do discretionary electrical activities overnight. Perhaps running the dishwasher or washing machine, although those are trivial. You know what’s not trivial? Charging up an EV. Problem? Meet solution: Off Peak rates, with no infrastructure changes.

But just like free charging at stores & theaters, that can only be the case when EVs are a tiny minority of cars.

Maybe. Of course putting an intermediate level charger in front of a theater costs about $1 per hour, a slow charger about 25¢ per hour. By way of comparison, swiping my credit card for a movie costs the theater…about 50¢. Now I’m not saying they will line up 50 chargers or more in their parking lots - but businesses have taken stranger tacks to attract customers than that. So don’t write off what looks odd today. I’m sure the first person paying a restaurant bill with a Diners’ Club Card looked odd to the rest of the patrons sitting there, too.

<<Ah, but your utility certainly has “peak costs” and “off peak costs”. They just haven’t bothered to unbundle it so you could get a peek behind the curtain. Every utility has base-load, generation which doesn’t change easily: hydro from dams, or perhaps electrons from nuclear. But there are intermediate load sources like coal plants and peak load sources like gas turbines, and all that has to be balanced against demand, because too little and your home goes dark. Too much and they fry their transformers. It costs money to scale up - and start up - and bring down those intermediate and peak load generators, which is why they don’t run overnight or in other low demand times.>>

EV would be a great balancer to peak and off-peak demands. One more reason for electricity producer and the nation as a whole to promote EVs.

Assuming the neighborhood power lines can support the load. Which mostly won’t be the case.”

Ah, but the neighborhood power lines are operating at far less than half capacity overnight, so the utilities could deliver more power to more homes without changing the infrastructure a whit. They would do so, of course, by offering “off peak” rates to encourage people to do discretionary electrical activities overnight. Perhaps running the dishwasher or washing machine, although those are trivial. You know what’s not trivial? Charging up an EV.


In any place with significant nuclear power or windpower, there tends to be a tremendous amount of baseline electricity production that utilities have a hard time using profitably. Even if and when 100% of vehicles are electric, there should be no problems with power lines supporting the load, as GH says. American homes use an average of about 30 kWh a day, with peak use of about 2-4 kWh/h mornings and evenings and much lower rates, like 1-2 kWh/h at night. People drive about 50 km a day on average, requiring about 13 kWh of electricity to recharge. Adding 1 kWh/h overnight will not put a strain on power lines, even if everyone had an EV. In fact, this would be a big help to utilities in balancing out the much higher daytime demand.

dt5b

"Charging is very convenient - just plug it in when you get home..."

What about the long road trips with kids? In the U.S. some of us travel long distances. After 4 hours of driving the three kiddos in the back, all under the age of 10 and strapped in their car seats, are getting restless. You pull in to the only Tesla charging station you can find in an unfamiliar town. It is 20 deg F (-7 C) outside. You tell the children to sit quietly, while going nowhere for 20 minutes. The charging station is in a sketchy part of town and you can't wait to get the h*ll out of there.

>>>In Massachusetts, electricity rate including delivery is about 30 cents/kWh, so 100 miles would cost 0.3*34.6 = $10.38. Most combustion sedans have average driving distance of 30 miles/gallon, 100 miles would cost 3.3 gallon and $10 with $3/gallon price.<<

Thats an excellent point--our electric and natural gas costs here in MA are surging. Natural Gas just informed a 27% increase this season.

If effective cost of EV equals $3.00 per gallon at the gas pump, I just filled up at $2.68 with unleaded gas. So EV is now more expensive here.

Back to the starting point of this discussion I don't see Berkshire taking a large stake in XOM in light of its oversized position in OXY.

I have also heard one often has to install a special home charger for optimal charging, correct?

While the EV companies will happily sell you an $800-plus-installation branded wall unit, what we did is I think the much more common approach: $455 for an electrician to install what is essentially a plug for an electric dryer. The cord that comes with the vehicle will plug into that, and doesn't need to unplugged from the wall ever (unless you choose to take it as a backup on a road trip).

--------------

Not to pile on, but we also have an American-made EV pickup.

To get it out of the way: yes, it has only a 4.5 foot bed, it takes hours to charge at home, and the range is a little less than 300 miles.

But, I'm more than satisfied with it. Granted, it's taking the place of my 1995 4Runner which I bought used in 1998 and is admittedly reaching the end of its service life - so just about anything would be a step up, what with the new truck having air conditioning, a radio, no duct tape and windows that go up and down.

Purchasing only-renewably-sourced electricity here costs 0.16/kwh. The received wisdom for in-town driving is to maximize the life of the 135kWh battery pack by routinely only using using the middle half of the range, i.e. charging it from 20% to 70%. The dryer plug (a 50A capy pulling 32A) charges at just over 5%/hour, so: overnight.

That's around 140-150 miles of range, which costs me (0.16 x [half of 135] equals) a little over ten bucks (unless it's sunny, when -- as pointed out by Goofy -- the solar panels make it free, cash flow-wise.)

If I'm leaving on a road trip, or just an upcoming day with 200+ miles ahead, then I just tell it to charge to 90% or whatever, by dragging a toggle on a phone screen.

------------

For road trips: a supercharger will charge over ten times as fast, and they're every fifty miles or so along the interstate, so an hour's stop is generally more than adequate. In Oregon/Washington, I've never had to wait and in fact don't think I've ever seen a supercharger station more than half full. They cost about three times as much as the home electricity (0.44 - 0.47/kWh), so around $30-$50 for a highway charge, depending on how low I was and how much I top off. The charger cable locks into the vehicle, so you can wander off for a meal while it's charging. The phone app will keep you posted in real time, and ping you when you're done (and after a few minutes grace period, some busier stations will start charging per minute for tying up a station).

The range degradation in the cold, or when preheating the cabin in the morning, or using the AC compressor, blower, heated seats...seems pretty trivial. I haven't quantified it yet, nor have I parked it overnight in subfreezing temperatures.

And when I do choose to make 400 mile/day, 1500-mile trips: the 2011 hybrid that's parked next to it is more comfortable for long drives anyway. But to circle back to my 1995 4Runner - whose niche the new* truck has taken - it's been 15? 20? years since it's been out of this three-county area.

And if I need to transport sheets of plywood or drywall: there's the utility trailer. Or, it's not hard to rent a truck for the day.

But everything else to date fits nicely, particularly given the very large frunk where the engine should be. And the towing capacity is eye-popping.

-- sutton
(*new to me. With a little patience, it always seems that sooner or later there's someone out there wanting to sell a one-year-old vehicle with 12-15K miles on it for a lot less than he bought it for.)

(and yes, I'm keeping the 4Runner. How else will my grandson earn to drive a stick shift? He's only a dozen or so years away from his learner's permit)

You tell the children to sit quietly, while going nowhere for 20 minutes. The charging station is in a sketchy part of town and you can't wait to get the h*ll out of there.

While I don't doubt you can find a charging station in a sketchy part of town, I think you're mostly going to find them at the same "rest stops" on the freeway as all the ICE cars are stopping at, or similarly freeway-adjacent. Though I'll grant that the average "rest stop" full of noisy trucks and gas stations and a multitude of fast food outlets is itself pretty sketchy. Maybe Pilot could do something to upscale the experience for the demanding parent / EV owner.

I’ve seen a few concerning news reports, mainly in the frigid Midwest, where the EVs struggled did not handle the extreme cold well.

Over 90% of cars sold in Norway are pure EVs, and they seem to be doing OK. Oslo, which is one of the warmer parts of Norway, is colder than S. Bend Indiana ("frigid Midwest" covers a lot, of course). Range does drop in cold weather.

"What about the long road trips with kids? In the U.S. some of us travel long distances. After 4 hours of driving the three kiddos in the back, all under the age of 10 and strapped in their car seats, are getting restless. You pull in to the only Tesla charging station you can find in an unfamiliar town. It is 20 deg F (-7 C) outside. You tell the children to sit quietly, while going nowhere for 20 minutes. The charging station is in a sketchy part of town and you can't wait to get the h*ll out of there. "

~~~~~~~~~~

It's easy to image the worst possibilities. Especially if your starting point is that your ICE has suddenly been replaced by an EV right out of the blue. I imagine that folks that purchase an EV will have sorted these types of things out before leaving the house. As an aside, any place that has charging stations in "a sketchy part of town" certainly has plenty more built out in non-sketchy areas. That decision is on you.

EVs are not the perfect vehicle for everyone. And neither are motorcycles.
A Honda Civic is useless to me for pulling my horse trailer but I don't go around griping about terrible they are. Everyone wears the shoe that fits them best.

I view EVs as still being in their infancy of development. Probably just past their Model-T stage. Battery range & lifespan will continue to improve as will the EV infrastructure. I can envision a time when transportation by ICE will be a novelty akin to the way the horse & buggy is today.

This long running thread exemplifies confirmation bias regarding energy, EVs, ICEs and other related sectors. We likely can all agree human ingenuity is always involved with creating better products and services.

It is for that reason we don’t know what we don’t know going forward.

We can assume energy consumption will continue upward as a 200+ year trend. This informed my view (admitting confirmation bias) in 2020 non-green energy stocks were screamingly cheap. While humans keep finding pockets of petroleum around the world, in recent decades have seldom found elephant sized fields. The huge Middle East elephant sized oil fields have been continuously pumped for seventy or more years. The same is true for many other significantly sized fields around the world. Again, we don’t know what we don’t know. We do know overall energy consumption of all types will be needed to grow to maintain worldwide GDP and societal stability.

Michael Malboussan and Daniel Callahan recently published a Charts from the Vault. One set of charts showed how the largest technology companies in recent years have transitioned from asset light to asset heavier with increasing investments in cloud/AI related sites that also consume vast quantities of electrical energy. I had a discussion last month with a person who told me of server farm sites being considered adjacent to large gas producing sites in the US and Canada for natural gas electricity generation for AI servers. I commented about having to push digital information father distances because of the remoteness of those natural gas fields. He said fiber optic pipes are a more easily solved aspect than acquiring the 24/7/365 available electrical energy consumed by those AI sites.

My humble and likely flawed analysis concludes we can all go 100% to EVs or maybe to solely using Waymo taxi services and still world demand for fossil fuels will continue at high levels. Perhaps not at today’s levels, but probably at a slightly lower consumption plateau. Meanwhile, known oil and gas fields continue declining.

When something (a physical asset) that is necessary for modern life gets screamingly cheap, my self admitted confirmation bias is to buy those companies like was seen in 2020. We may look back one day and say fossil fuels companies were cheap in late 2024.

Good luck to all my fellow confirmation biased investors on this wonderful site.

Uwharrie

It’s easy to imagine the worst possibilities … EVs are not the perfect vehicle for everyone

I saw this a while ago and it certainly answers a lot of the objections:

Imagine if we were driving EVs for 100 years and then someone invented the internal combustion engine.

This device is at best 30% efficient in converting the energy in the fuel to motive power. They are so inefficient that they have to carry 250kWh of fuel to travel 400km.
The engines are very noisy and must rotate at very high speed to develop a decent amount of power, so they have to have a clumsy gearbox.

The fuel it runs on must be extracted from wells deep beneath the earth or the sea, causing a lot of pollution. The amount available in these wells is limited and will expire in a relatively short time. It gets gummy and goes bad quickly once distilled into gasoline, so it must be extracted, refined, transported, and consumed all within a short cycle.

This “crude” oil must be transported on ships, causing more pollution. It must be processed in a refinery, using a lot of energy and causing more pollution. Sulphur must be removed or sulphuric acid will be generated in the combustion system, this is done using Cobalt in a catalytic converter.

It must then be transported to fuel stations for retailing, again more pollution.
When burned in the engine particles are emitted from an exhaust pipe along with NOx and SOx, presenting health hazards and worse still Carbon Dioxide which causes the climate of the planet to change resulting in an existential threat. Carbon Monoxide is also emitted with the danger of suffocation and death if operated in an enclosed space.

These combustion engines would have to have hundreds of moving parts, requiring a lot of maintenance and worse still lubricating oil which becomes contaminated and must be changed regularly, resulting in, you guessed it, even more pollution.

Spillages of oil from fuel tanks and transportation vehicles would cause other road vehicles to skid and crash, causing injuries and death.

When going up a hill these vehicles consume a lot of fuel, however, when descending they cannot put the fuel back in the tank by regeneration but must instead use their brakes, causing more wear, tear and pollution.

Why would anyone bother?

@Texirish - thanks for a good post on XOM. I too went through their Corporate Strategy deck and was impressed with their 2025-2030 plans. However, it appears that some in the market are not as there's been selling pressure every day since the presentation.

https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/_85cf201fad96...

Upstream - Permian, Guyana basin, LNG

Product Solutions - refined products (commodity and specialty chemicals), includes new Proxxima resin

Low Carbon Solutions - carbon capture, low-carbon (gray) hydrogen, lithium

Of those divisions, the first two are pretty well defined and the cost cutting and reorganization of business functions should drive cash flow.
The last of those is a big question mark with FID coming in 2028 and 2029 for hydrogen and lithium projects. There's likely to be a lot of investment in those projects with a great deal more risk than for Upstream and Product Solutions. That's my guess at what the market doesn't like. Exxon didn't break out capital investment by division or by projects so we can't really see how costly these LCS projects will be. The last thing that I didn't like about the presentation is the lack of per share metrics. Exxon made a big splash about earnings growth and cash flow etc. but did not present in per share metrics. I wanted to see that focus on growing EPS and CF/share.

Wait! You can’t just fill up in your garage anytime you want? You have to drive to a special place just to get more fuel? Seriously?

I think you're mostly going to find them at the same "rest stops" on the freeway as all the ICE cars are stopping at, or similarly freeway-adjacent.

You guys are *still* ignoring the main problem.
It only works when there are only a few EVs.

The Sam's Club by me has 72 gas pumps. There is always a line waiting for a pump to free up. Looking at the google map satellite picture I count 14 cars waiting.
How different will it be when a charge takes 30-60 minutes (for only a partial charge) vs. a car fillup at 5 minutes?

People who know queueing theory turn white after doing the math.


Maybe Pilot could do something to upscale the experience for the demanding parent / EV owner.

Tell me you have never taken a road trip with 3 youngsters without saying that you've never taken a road trip with a bunch of young kids.

5 minutes to fill up the gas tank, 10-15 minutes to go inside to pee and grab a soda and candy bar. Back on the highway, empty bladders and refreshed in 20 minutes.
vs.
2 hour wait behind the 3-4 EVs in front of you in line for the charger. 30 minutes to get a partial charge. Double-team while in line, one of you can take the kids inside to pee while the other waits in the car, then swap places.

<<The Sam's Club by me has 72 gas pumps. There is always a line waiting for a pump to free up. Looking at the google map satellite picture I count 14 cars waiting.
How different will it be when a charge takes 30-60 minutes (for only a partial charge) vs. a car fillup at 5 minutes?>>

There is a business module where you swap the EV battery at the station that won't take longer than filling up the gas tank. That would be a solution if technology wont' speed up charging significantly.

"business model"

Imagine if we were driving EVs for 100 years and then someone invented the internal combustion engine.

This device is at best 30% efficient in converting the energy in the fuel to motive power. They are so inefficient that they have to carry 250kWh of fuel to travel 400km.
The engines are very noisy and must rotate at very high speed to develop a decent amount of power, so they have to have a clumsy gearbox.


And yet gasoline powered cars replaced electric cars very quickly when cars were first invented. Also replaced steam powered cars.

You still have to use "fuel [that] must be extracted from wells deep beneath the earth or the sea", convert it to electricity, and distribute the electricity all over to where it needs to be loaded into the vehicles. It is much more efficient to transport a liquid 1000 miles than to transport the equivalent electricity 1000 miles. It is only marginally more expensive to transport twice as much liquid than to transport twice as much electricity.

Not to mention how practical it is to make the necessary batteries for all the cars & trucks. It is doubtful that there is enough materials in the world.

Tell me you have never taken a road trip with 3 youngsters without saying that you've never taken a road trip with a bunch of young kids.

5 minutes to fill up the gas tank, 10-15 minutes to go inside to pee and grab a soda and candy bar. Back on the highway, empty bladders and refreshed in 20 minutes.


If you are refreshing your children with soda and candy bars, no wonder they can't sit still. Try giving them food and water and you might get a better result.

dtb

"Charging is very convenient - just plug it in when you get home..."

What about the long road trips with kids? In the U.S. some of us travel long distances. After 4 hours of driving the three kiddos in the back, all under the age of 10 and strapped in their car seats, are getting restless. You pull in to the only Tesla charging station you can find in an unfamiliar town. It is 20 deg F (-7 C) outside. You tell the children to sit quietly, while going nowhere for 20 minutes. The charging station is in a sketchy part of town and you can't wait to get the h*ll out of there.

We drive 800 miles to the beach once a year. How? We take one of our gas-powered cars. If we didn't have a gas-powered car we'd rent one. A nice minivan.

After 4 hours our kids all needed to go potty, and I needed a break from the whining and bickering. I doubt we ever got through a rest stop in less than a half hour.

This can only happen when EVs are rare. If EVs are a significant percentage of all cars, there will no longer be free charging. 100 EVs wanting to charge at 4 chargers at a movie theater won't work.

Yep, this is absolutely true. It's just an added benefit that will probably go away someday. Though even in places with lots and lots of EVs there still seems to be free charging available occasionally. For example, one of my kids has free charging at the parking lot of their workplace. And I've seen photos of the Google and Apple parking lots in CA with rows and rows of free chargers.

Who paid for the electricity? The government or business?

I don't know, but it isn't particularly relevant because it is so minimal as to be negligible. Commercial electricity is around 7 cents a kWh in many places. So when I go to the supermarket for 40 minutes and charge 4 kWh, it's like a 28 cent "coupon" to induce me to shop there instead of at the supermarket across the street that doesn't have chargers. In most places, the local business pays for the electricity.

What about the long road trips with kids? In the U.S. some of us travel long distances. After 4 hours of driving the three kiddos in the back, all under the age of 10 and strapped in their car seats, are getting restless. You pull in to the only Tesla charging station you can find in an unfamiliar town. It is 20 deg F (-7 C) outside. You tell the children to sit quietly, while going nowhere for 20 minutes. The charging station is in a sketchy part of town and you can't wait to get the h*ll out of there.

First of all, most people do only one or two road trips a year, and the average distance is under 300 miles one way. So that means one charging stop along the way. And in real life, this isn't how it works. In real life, the kids (and wife and you) will need to stop to pee, to grab a snack, to drink, to clean up whatever mess they made, to stretch their legs, etc. Whether you are driving and ICE vehicle or an EV, you're going to stop, and it won't be a 5 minute stop, it'll be longer than that. Just herding all the kids to the proper bathrooms takes a few minutes, then washing hands, other clean up, snacks and drinks, and looking at the "cool stuff" (even travel brochures can be cool to kids) at the rest stop will take some time. And in the real world, the charging stations AREN'T in sketchy parts of town for a few reasons, but mainly because the owners of EV tend to be more upscale consumers, and because better locations avoid vandalism, and because if you want business from road trippers, you need to locate your chargers at a convenient location just off the highway with sufficient amenities nearby. That's why a lot of new superchargers are at WaWa. The kids **LOVE** WaWa, good place to sit and have a snack, decent bathrooms, and ALL SORTS of snacks available to purchase. Their flavored coffees are a favorite of my wife and older kids. On a road trip a few years ago, while still on line at Dunkin, my car sent me a message that it was already done charging, I had to quickly bump it up to a higher percentage max charge to avoid idle charges at the charger! Then as soon as we got out coffees and hot chocolates, I had to run out to move the car to a regular spot while the rest of the family finished their snacking.

I have 5 kids (all born over a period of 6 years) and road tripped with them for years, so this is really how it works in real life, EV or no EV.

This can only happen when EVs are rare. If EVs are a significant percentage of all cars, there will no longer be free charging. 100 EVs wanting to charge at 4 chargers at a movie theater won't work.

There will never be universal free charging, but I'm fairly sure there free charging will be common place for a while, and I believe will become more common.

Here's the simple math: At $0.10/kWh, a Level II 40A charger (9.6kW) costs just under $1/hr. If providing free charging means you shop at the Safeway instead of Piggly Wiggly down the street, then it is a good deal for the store owner. If fact, my Safeway has had free charging for several years now.

Same with seeing the latest Avengers movie at the Cinemark instead of the AMC. If 100 EVs show up a bit early to get a chance at those four spots...that works great! What do you do if you arrive early at movie besides go to the snack bar?

There potential problems, but potential work arounds too. Like providing free charging with a validation.

Just got the latest FSD update in my Cybertruck. My humble advice is that if you are buying a new car and don't tow over 100 miles then don't buy anything other than a Tesla. They're the only ones that have it.

The current stock run is not a fluke, it's the result of investors realizing that FSD is a game changer. The word out is that after driving with FSD for three trips you're addicted ... it's worse than crack. Can confirm. (I added the part about crack myself.) Seriously, it has gotten good and when people get comfortable with it they won't want to buy a car without it.

Don't worry about batteries, they're plenty good right now. Don't buy a hybrid.

As for kids, when the car is fully autonomous, you'll be able to watch Netflix or play games on the main screen.
------------------------
After BTC defied skeptics and breached $100, then $1,000, then $10,000, then $100,000 ... the new battle lines have been drawn at $1,000,000. No chance it reaches that. (Time to start building trenches ahead of 10M though just in case.)

The Sam's Club by me has 72 gas pumps. There is always a line waiting for a pump to free up. Looking at the google map satellite picture I count 14 cars waiting. How different will it be when a charge takes 30-60 minutes (for only a partial charge) vs. a car fillup at 5 minutes?

But here's the deal. Most people who are doing city driving will do most of their charging at home - it's cheaper and more convenient. And other places they can charge: church, strip mall, school/work (we use all those options, but 95% of the time at home). The people using the charging stations will mostly be people on longer trips. And people will use apps to see wait times at various charging stations, so the load will be more evenly distributed. If wait times are long then of course more charging stations will open along that route. Am I missing something?

This is how one major ICE fuel provider is addressing the EV market.

“By 2025, we expect to have around 70,000 public EV charge points and around 200,000 by 2030 globally.

Shell Recharge is present in around 30 markets worldwide; however, the majority of Shell’s investment in EV charging is currently prioritised towards seven leading markets for EV adoption – China, Singapore, the UK, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany and the USA.”

https://www.shell.com/what-we-do/mobility/electric...

ciao

also, this may not work in the USA but Europe is addressing the curbside charging issue with this creative solution…

https://ubitricity.com/en/

ciao

You guys are *still* ignoring the main problem.
It only works when there are only a few EVs.

The Sam's Club by me has 72 gas pumps. There is always a line waiting for a pump to free up. Looking at the google map satellite picture I count 14 cars waiting.
How different will it be when a charge takes 30-60 minutes (for only a partial charge) vs. a car fillup at 5 minutes?

It isn't ignoring. It is a different understanding. If you look through this thread, people who own EVs have very different charging experiences than described by those who don't own EVs.

I'll wager you can install and operate an EV charging station for 1/10 the cost of a gas pump. EV charging stations can be placed virtually anywhere you can park. Gas stations need dedicated locations. If there was enough demand, that Sam's Club could easily have 500 EV charging stations.

What fuel source will power the EV charging stations?

What fuel source will power the EV charging stations?


The same mix as currently: gas, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, etc.

The big advantage of having a lot of battery chargin in the mix is that it can usually be off-peak, i.e. not between 6 and 9 in the morning and not between 4 and 8 in the evening. So nuclear, which provides for a pretty much constant output around the clock, will finally have something to do in the middle of the night, and windpower (which is better at night) will not be such a bad fit. If and when deep geothermal becomes an economically viable option, it would be like nuclear, with demand from EVs at night making it more viable.

Batteries are very expensive, so the big problem with wind and solar is that they are sporadic, and their cost is much greater than fossil fuel or nuclear, once you include the cost of storage to make renewables a reliable source. But if you have 300 million EVs that are often hooked up to the network, all of a sudden you have something which can absorb off-peak generation and, sometimes, give some back during the times of peak demand, with that battery capacity already paid for as part of the car.

dtb

What fuel source will power the EV charging stations?

A very wide variety of sources - nuclear, nat gas, hydro, solar, wind, coal, etc. That's the other beautiful thing about EVs versus ICE vehicles. ICE vehicles will always run on gasoline no matter what, but EVs can run on 30% coal/40% nat gas/30% other today, but in a few years, that VERY SAME EV can run off of 0% coal/30% nat gas/70% other. The local electric utilities can choose which sources are most efficient for them to use to generate, and BOOM suddenly all those EVs are using a better and more efficient generation method!

"People who know queueing theory turn white after doing the math."

I know some queueing theory. I also know about perc tests, biochemistry, and MBTE. There are constraints on gasoline distribution and externalities to it. That's not even getting into the practical realities of more pipelines (including ones not related to permitting or suitable locations like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Pipeline_ra...) and induced seismicity from wastewater disposal.

Every parking space at a filling station can have a charger, as many or most at retail or commercial parking lots. Try to scale up pumps and you get a Buc-ee's.

And speaking about math and petroleum, why is nobody talking about frack re-stim'ing not doing that well, or wondering where we are on the decline curve of drillable shale prospects compared to already drilled ones.

Resource peaks are a monetary phenomenon as much as a geology one. The Permian looks good, but the Bakken's already peaked. EV conversion is a function of oil prices, as are 2P reserve levels. EVs look a lot better at $100+ WTI.

Substantial conversion to EVs or a non petroleum gasoline feedstock source is 100% inevitable at current consumption rates, probably in our lifetimes or our childrens's. Or substantially reduced consumption, but that is likely not a good outcome.

Wondering whether this is the longest thread ever.

Invest the time to watch. XOM no brainer at current prices:

https://event.webcasts.com/viewer/event.jsp?ei=168...

https://event.webcasts.com/viewer/event.jsp?ei=168...



That's a 3 1/2 hour long presentation. Is there a summary anywhere?

TexIrish just gave us the summary. Original post.

Cannot fully appreciate until you invest the TIME in the full presentation.

QUALITY on sale.

The summary is basically in the opening and closing remarks.

The reason the presentation is so long is that XOM wants the analysts to understand the plans in detail. They even have added a "Modeling Guide" with links that permit access to detailed historic data and cross-checking prior plan presentations back to 2014.

So it's more interested in transparency than brevity.

Here's my "quickie".

Projects first outlined in early 2018 are going forward - ahead of or on plan. These include Guyana, the Permian, LNG, and certain high profitable refinery investments based on proprietary technology. Ex LNG, most of these are already on line. The plan primarily discloses the expansions to these plans. These include a huge growth in Guyana production and reserves, a huge expansion in the Permian with the acquisition of Pioneer, and an expanded effort in CCAS, plus potentially significant new uses for refinery molecules in a new epoxy and a new synthetic graphite.

ExxonMobil has completely reorganized and simplified its organization. The results are major cost reductions plus significant synergies by combining prior "siloed" organizations into into single ones.

XOM can sustain dividends and capex at breakeven prices now at $35 Brent crude. It is heading towards $30 breakeven. It has well developed strategies to operate through industry cycles and stay on plans.

*****

Hopefully this will incite interested parties to dig deeper into the presentations.

Tex

Do we sell OXY to buy XOM? What about CVX?

Not either or

BUY XOM

My oh my oh my oh my
What to do, what to do, what to do

Etrade analyst ratings:
1 buy
4 hold
3 sell
Average predicted 12 month price: $131, +20%


Fidelity "Opinions & reports" ratings:
1 sell
6 Neutral

Fidelity "other opinions":
7 buy/outperform
3 Neutral

"ARGUS RATING: BUY
• Recent price weakness offers buying opportunity"
Report at 118, currently 108

Do we sell OXY to buy XOM? What about CVX?

I'm not now trying to answer that question - particularly in my original post. I simply asked if BRK should consider XOM as an investment instead of cash. I didn't say it would solve the issue of what to do with all the cash. I just said it could be part of the solution.

It is one of the few places that could soak up tens of billions of dollars. And implied that it might be undervalued. M*, IIRC, estimated an target price might be $135. I added that waiting, even now, might still be the best strategy. Addressing alternate investments in the O&G industry would have required another, also very long, post.

Somehow, after a few related comments, the original question was hijacked into a discussion of EV vehicles. I don't mind - actually I'm very pleased that it ended up motivating good discussion. I'd like to see more.

I even intend to join in with the EV conversation. I have some opinions that many may not agree with. Some might. But not tonight. Other, bigger family health insurance issues, have popped up that are more important to deal with.

But I'll soon share these thoughts. And I won't even change the title line to reflect that I'm now talking about EVs.

Why break a good, active,discussion? I doubt it's a record length thread anyway.

XOM is SAFE

Stay rich stock

Other, bigger family health insurance issues, have popped up that are more important to deal with.

Best wishes to all involved. We all have to remember that those other folks on the board aren't just patterns of bits.

Jim

...or are we?...

“ So, what do you think is going to happen? The rest of the world will gradually transition to Chinese-made self-driving E.V.s, “and America will become the new Cuba — the place where you visit to see old gas-guzzling cars that you drive yourself,” as Keith Bradsher, the Times Beijing bureau chief and an auto industry specialist, mused to me.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/17/opinion/us-chin...

EUROPE WIND POWER A “SHIT SITUATION,” SAYS MINISTER

Europe’s energy woes are spiraling out of control, a predictable disaster brought on by shortsighted policy making and an overconfidence in wind and solar power.

As cold wintry weather and the dreaded Dunkelflute (wind drought) grip the continent, electricity prices are skyrocketing.

Southern Norwegians, accustomed to paying €0.18 per kWh saw prices soar past €1.12 kWh last week. While in southern Sweden, a 10-minute shower now costs €2.65.

Wind power is flatlining, rendering those towering monstrosity even more useless than usual.

German wind output plummeted to a paltry 2.8 gigawatts, far from the usual 19 gigawatts expected at this time of year (Montel Analytics). The fallout has forced Germany to fire up coal plants and import electricity from France. At one point last week, German wholesale prices hit a staggering €936 per megawatt hour—the highest in 18 years—as wind turbines stood still, solar produced next to nothing under the gloomy December skies, and the entire grid teetered on the brink.

Industry is being hit hardest. With energy costs obliterating profit margins, several German manufacturers have been forced to shut down operations—including companies with histories spanning a century or more. The Feralpi electric steel plant in Saxony has ground to a halt, with its executives calling the situation unsustainable. “Dire doesn’t even begin to cover it,” they add.

German industry, once the backbone of Europe’s economy, is folding under the weight of idiotic, suicidal energy policy that no sane soul voted for.

For consumers, things are just as depressing. Electricity supplier Tibber is warning Norwegian households to brace for price hikes of up to 400%. Norway’s energy minister, Terje Aasland, summed up the situation: “It’s an absolutely shit situation.”

Norway, a hydropower giant, still imports 10% of its electricity from wind-starved Europe, and now finds itself caught in the chaos. Both ruling parties are now vowing to sever energy interconnections with Denmark and the continent by 2026, promising to prioritize cheap electricity at home—as they did for decades before succumbing to the misguided ‘save the planet’ ideology.

Sweden’s government ministers are also seething, with Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson waking up: “If we hadn’t shut down half of nuclear power, we wouldn’t have these problems. It’s true and it needs to be said.” The previous Social Democrat-Greens coalition, in their ideological zeal, dismantled several reactors between 2019 and 2020. These clowns should be tried.

Swedish Energy Minister Ebba Busch turned her fury toward Germany: “I’m furious with the Germans,” she told SVT. Germany’s decision to close its nuclear plants—culminating in the April 2022 shutdown of its last reactors—has had catastrophic ripple effects across the continent. “They made a decision for their country… but it has had very serious consequences.” Indeed, when German wind production falters, Swedish electricity is siphoned off to fill the gap, squeezing domestic supply and inflating prices.

Wind, solar, and wishful thinking aren’t enough—not with the tech as it currently stands. Ideology doesn’t keep the lights on, it turns out. Nations are choosing the path of self-inflicted ruin—gutting their energy stability in favor of an unreliable grid.

Sweden has seen the light—belatedly, and their government is now planning to build 10 new nuclear reactors. Norway, too, is finally waking. How long will it be before the rest follow? How many factories need to be shuttered, how furious do we citizens need to get, before our corrupted overlords agree to 180?

I'm very pleased that it ended up motivating good discussion. I'd like to see more.

Right! I just hope for more (to use a word I hate, as it's so abused and ideologically occupied) "diversity".

The previous Social Democrat-Greens coalition, in their ideological zeal, dismantled several reactors between 2019 and 2020. These clowns should be tried.

It still blows my mind that they closed down clean nuclear plants while leaving dirty coal plants operating. How is that "green" in any way? It's not, apparently it was just power play politics in a parliamentary system that requires coalitions to operate.

The previous Social Democrat-Greens coalition, in their ideological zeal, dismantled several reactors between 2019 and 2020. These clowns should be tried.

It still blows my mind that they closed down clean nuclear plants while leaving dirty coal plants operating. How is that "green" in any way? It's not, apparently it was just power play politics in a parliamentary system that requires coalitions to operate.



I agree that shutting German nuclear power plants that were operating perfectly well is among the nuttiest things a government has done in a long time. This article: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786... claims that, if Germany had invested in nuclear power instead of phasing it out, it could have reduced its C02 footprint by 73% AND saved $730b US. Instead, it has spent all this money and INCREASED its CO2 footprint. Thank you, Greens, who, yes, deserve much of the blame. But its is not right to blame all of the on the Greens and the Social Democrats - after all, Canada and the USA, like Germany, have had right of centre as well as left of centre governments, and we have also turned their backs on nuclear energy for the past 20-30 years. So it would be a mistake to think that it's all the fault of electoral systems that give fringe parties too much control.

First of all, nuclear power has been unpopular in Germany for a long time. The last nuclear power plant opened in Germany was commissioned in 1989, and at its peak, about 25% of German power came from nuclear, in addition to large exports to neighbouring countries. Nuclear power has been in phase-out for at least 25 years, with fierce opposition from left of centre governments and only lukewarm support, if that, from right of centre governments. With Fukushima, in 2011, Germany really slammed on the breaks, and it was Angela Merkel, from the right of centre CDU (and a chemist, who should have known better) who shut down half the remaining plants, and scheduled all the others for phase-out, at the same time that Japan also decided to give up on nuclear energy. Schröder (2017) and Scholz (2021), Social Democrat chancellors, just completed the process in Germany, with the last reactor closed last year.

The beliefs that nuclear power is dangerous and polluting, and that we have no way of disposing of nuclear waste, are very widespread. The idea that we could just phase it out, and replace it with windmills and solar panels, is one of the most naive and destructive ideas of our century in technology, right up there with socialism and communism in the political sphere and gender-transitioning children and victim ideologies in the societal sphere. The sooner we come to our senses and throw out these bad ideas, the better, but we should acknowledge that they have not been just fringe beliefs, but widespread amongst the intelligentsia and decision makers throughout the world's liberal democracies.

CrankyCharlie: The previous Social Democrat-Greens coalition, in their ideological zeal, dismantled several reactors between 2019 and 2020. These clowns should be tried.

One point: The German government's phase-out plan and decision to close all reactors by 2022 was passed by the Bundestag by a 513 to 79 vote.

Well, two points: The German government and the German people were less interested in promoting an "ideology" that "doesn't keep the lights on" but rather reacting to the Fukushima Daiichi accident.

That was not me

XOM is a country not a Company. Better connected than The State Department.

Sweden has seen the light—belatedly, and their government is now planning to build 10 new nuclear reactors.

So back on topic, "Why Not XOM". Sweden is planning on NOT building fossil fuel electric generating plants. XOM is projecting demand to stay constant, others such as BP and others are projecting oil demand to decline. My thoughts are that the XOM planners may be doing their production projections (based on availability of reserves) first, and letting their biases set their demand curves. Does XOM have two independent teams working on demand forecast and production economics forecast?

Aussi

A lot of true statements.

But Merkel is a physicist, not chemist.

I am quite happy that I don´t live near a nuclear power plant. :-)

Here anybody that would like it?

https://x.com/Barchart/status/1869551546993934685

XOM 3rd largest component of S&P 500 Value ETF

https://www.webullapp.com/news-detail/119861661952...


GOOD XOM overview of future

" CVX - Chevron Corp. 6.56 118,610,534 $147.27 $17,467,773,000 $144.08 -2.17% $133.85 $164.68

OXY - Occidental Petroleum 4.94 255,281,524 $51.54 $13,157,210,000 $46.02 -10.71% $45.79 $70.30"


Is anyone suggesting Buffett sell oxy and cvx and buy xom? Do you believe Buffett didn't take a long hard look at xom before he bought oxy? To quote our president, Come on man.

BTW, T and T initially bought Apple, but they were selling and Buffett stepped in to buy with both hands, while T and T were selling it out. Uncle Warren hit the home run on apple. Carry on.

The original post stated that XOM was a way better risk adjusted idea than cash.

to get the facts right:

Schröder was "Bundeskanzler" from 1998 to 2005, not 2017. ;-)

But Merkel is a physicist, not chemist.

I am quite happy that I don´t live near a nuclear power plant. :-)

Here anybody that would like it?


Physics and chemistry are closely related, especially if you are in 'physical chemistry'. Her doctorate was in quantum chemistry, but describing her work as 'physics' is also not wrong:

Later that year she went to Leipzig to study physics at Karl Marx University (now the University of Leipzig). There she met her first husband, fellow physics student Ulrich Merkel, and the two were married in 1977. After earning her diploma in 1978, she worked as a member of the academic faculty at the Central Institute of Physical Chemistry of the Academy of Sciences in East Berlin. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Angela-Merkel

I wouldn't want to live next to any big power plant, but if I had to live next to one, it might as well be a nuclear plant. A lot less smoke and ash, so much better for your health.

dtb

Schröder was "Bundeskanzler" from 1998 to 2005, not 2017. ;-)


You are right, and it makes my case stronger - in fact, almost all of the phase-out of nuclear power in Germany was done by a right-wing government. SOmetimes with a Green coalition partner, it is true, but I think you could safely say that the consensus was that we could move away from nuclear power and transition to renewables. That is no longer the consensus, and it has been a very costly mistake, but we should not just blame it on the left.

dtb

" The original post stated that XOM was a way better risk adjusted idea than cash."


How much exposure do you think Buffett wants to the space? IF he doesn't sell oxy or cvx, does he want to be 15 % or more the industry? I doubt it.

You might be right -- do we know if T&T sold out completely or not? They bought 61 million shares. I don't think they sold any shares until Warren stopped buying. It is murky and hard to know for sure but there were only about 25 millions shares sold in 2018 and 2019. When sales started back up in 2020 it was was over 93M shares so those sales had to be at least partially Warren's stake. Do we know for sure that T&T don't still have 36M shares of Apple in their pile? Maybe Warren stated in an interview or annual meeting that T&T sold out. I remember mentioning the first sales were my T&T but those sales don't appear to be > 61M at first blush. I guess they could have sold while Warren was buying and the buys dwarfed the sales but would you sell out before Warren was done buying close to 1M shares?

2021   Q2	887,135,554	41.46			$136.96
2021   Q1	887,135,554	40.07			$122.15
2020   Q4	887,135,554	43.61	Reduce 6.05%	2.81	$132.69
2020   Q3	944,295,554	46.35	Reduce 3.70%	1.78	$115.81
2020   Q2	980,622,264	44.18			$91.20
2020   Q1	980,622,264	35.52			$63.57
2019   Q4	980,622,264	29.74	Reduce 1.48%	0.45	$73.41
2019   Q3	995,354,716	25.96	Reduce 0.30%	0.08	$55.99
2019   Q2	998,357,316	23.74			$49.48
2019   Q1	998,357,316	23.77			$47.49
2018   Q4	998,357,316	21.51	Reduce 1.14%	0.25	$39.44
2018   Q3	1,009,915,116	25.79	Add 0.21%	0.05	$56.44
2018   Q2	1,007,823,508	23.84	Add 5.17%	1.17	$46.28
2018   Q1	958,270,532	21.27	Add 44.90%	6.59	$41.95
2017   Q4	661,335,848	14.63	Add 23.30%	2.76	$42.31
2017   Q3	536,371,128	11.63	Add 3.00%	0.34	$38.53
2017   Q2	520,767,840	11.56	Add 0.65%	0.07	$36.00
2017   Q1	517,428,424	11.48	Add 125.52%	6.39	$35.91
2016   Q4	229,438,608	4.49	Add 276.68%	3.30	$28.95
2016   Q3	60,910,808	1.34			$28.26
2016   Q2	60,910,808	1.12	Add 55.20%	0.40	$23.90
2016   Q1	39,246,988	0.83	Buy	0.83	$27.25  

Is anyone suggesting Buffett sell oxy and cvx and buy xom? Do you believe Buffett didn't take a long hard look at xom before he bought oxy? To quote our president, Come on man.

Agreed. And I am sure he looked at all the big oils when he decided to buy CVX, including XOM. He has over $30B in those two names. That'd be a top 3 or 4 position right about now.

He has admitted to being bad at airlines and oil so I am fine if he does not add more.

He has actually traded CVX very well to date and I think we might be seeing all three of them trade a bit more.

      Period	Shares	  % of Portfolio Activity % Change to Portfolio	Reported Price
2024   Q3	118,610,534	6.56			        $147.27
2024   Q2	118,610,534	6.63	Reduce 3.55%	0.24	$156.42
2024   Q1	122,980,207	5.85	Reduce 2.47%	0.15	$157.74
2023   Q4	126,093,326	5.34	Add 14.37%	0.67	$149.16
2023   Q3	110,248,289	5.90	Reduce 10.45%	0.69	$168.62
2023   Q2	123,120,120	5.56	Reduce 7.01%	0.42	$157.35
2023   Q1	132,407,595	6.65	Reduce 18.76%	1.54	$163.16
2022   Q4	162,975,771	9.78	Reduce 1.44%	0.14	$179.49
2022   Q3	165,359,318	8.02	Add 2.43%	0.19	$143.67
2022   Q2	161,440,149	7.79	Add 1.42%	0.11	$144.78
2022   Q1	159,178,117	7.13	Add 316.21%	5.42	$162.83
2021   Q4	38,245,036	1.36	Add 33.24%	0.34	$117.35
2021   Q3	28,703,519	0.99	Add 24.13%	0.19	$101.45
2021   Q2	23,123,920	0.83	Reduce 2.32%	0.02	$104.74
2021   Q1	23,672,271	0.92	Reduce 51.19%	0.96	$104.79
2020   Q4	48,498,965	1.52	Add 9.55%	0.13	$84.45
2020   Q3	44,272,770	1.35	Buy	        1.35	$72.00  

" You might be right -- do we know if T&T sold out completely or not? They bought 61 million shares. I don't think they sold any shares until Warren stopped buying. It is murky and hard to know for sure but there were only about 25 millions shares sold in 2018 and 2019. "


Hi, if you want to be hated in brkville, just post the truth. Since T and T failed to outperform, Buffett became, less than optimum with respect to disclosure. We know T and or T were selling while Buffett loaded up. Buffett does everything he can to make T and T look, better than they have done. This has been a HUGE disappointment to me, a 30-year brkhead. The lack of transparency surprises me. Good luck.

Re the original suggestion of XOM as a possible investment pick.

Perhaps there is alternative merit in the picks and shovels approach? Almost literally, in this case. Not quite so dependent on the commodity price.
At least superficially, Schlumberger (SLB) at $36.80 seems pretty modestly valued at the moment. It was trading around $56 as recently as this spring, and they're probably making money these days at a rate of about $4/share/year. Nice balance sheet.

I don't own the thing, but the more knowledgeable folks might find it worth a bit of reading.

Jim

“ Buffett does everything he can to make T and T look, better than they have done. This has been a HUGE disappointment to me, a 30-year brkhead.”

Well this 15-year BRK head is fine with Warren NOT shining the Broadway stage lights on T&T detailed trades. “Praise by name and criticize by category,” as Warren has said. I have, not surprisingly, heard zero criticism from WEB or the late CTM of these 2 loyal and Uber-talented lieutenants. No sensible owner wants to air any constructive criticism in public (IF there is any). Warren & Charlie have always been First-class and lived and managed by the Golden Rule. I love that! Looking back, I/we would pull in managers during an annual review and praise them, as well as deliver a bit of constructive criticism behind closed doors.

I imagine T&T might be hanging around the index returns (like a lot of us) since coming on board in 2011 or so, so @12% returns, that’s a double every 6 years by my math, so their initial $20B may now be $80B. I say TYVM! Glad I am managing a few peanuts with unlimited opportunity vs. their current management of $20B each.

WEB, Greg & the Directors know these gentlemen very very well. I suspect they are loyal and multi-talented lieutenants that have BRK in their genetic code. Even WEB has admitted at times T&T are outperforming him, but let’s face it, Warren is managing and allocating over a half Trillion dollars!

I truly appreciate these gents, as well as every employee busting their *SS for us as owners and facilitating me Not working! It’s been yet another quite “satisfactory” (as WEB says) year as a Berkshire owner, up ~ 25% as a $1T conglomerate-Crazy, so I say to Warren & ALL members of team Berkshire, TYVVM!!! May there be many more decades of such “satisfactory” returns for us all.

Come on, brk is not a hedge fund nor mutual fund. The goal of T&T is to manage insurance float and get a reasonable return on the money that they may need to pay back in the future. It’s owner’s money. Rule number one is dont lose money. This is different from hedge funds where they need to maximize this year’s return to get the biggest bonus.

If Buffett wants them to chase returns, I suspect they can be more aggressive. But most short term alphas /quick money are done through shorting stocks or on the long side buy special situations or OTCs . These are not scalable to Brk’s size and has a none zero chance of permanent lose of capital

https://x.com/Barchart/status/1869551546993934685


S&P 500 Value Stocks have declined for 13 consecutive days, the longest losing streak in history!

Top holding of ETF?
3rd largest holding?

BRKB and XOM

News Detail
12/19/24, 7:18 AM
Inside ExxonMobil's $30 Billion Plan to Build the Energy Company of
the Future
What's Trending
1 Black Sea CPC Blend oil exports un
The Motley Fool · 2h ago Share
Community Markets News Learn Download Stock/News
in January plan vs December, sour
Reuters · 32m ago
Sign up
Listen to the news
2 The 10-Point: The Wall Street Guide to the Day's Top News
Dow Jones · 1h ago
Journ
ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) is the hands-down leader of today's carbon-powered world. The company
is an industry-leading producer of hydrocarbons. It's also the most profitable company in the sector
by a wide margin. The energy giant expects to invest heavily over the next several years to continue
growing its legacy hydrocarbon business.
At the same time, it's also ramping up its investments in lower-carbon energy. Those investments
should fuel billions of dollars in incremental earnings in the coming decades.
Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best
stocks to buy right now. See the 10 stocks »
$30 billion by 2030
ExxonMobil recently unveiled its bold 2030 vision. It aims to grow its capacity for earnings and cash
flow by $20 billion and $30 billion, respectively, by 2030. The main driver is investing $140 billion
into major projects and its Permian Basin development plan over the next several years. It expects
these investments to generate returns of more than 30%.
Another aspect of Exxon's 2030 plan is the pursuit of up to $30 billion of low emissions
opportunities in the 2025 to 2030 timeframe. Roughly 65% of that spending would be on projects to
help reduce emissions for third-party customers. It aims to build three lower-carbon solutions
business units focused on carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, and lithium.
The energy giant has several projects already under development. For example, it's working on the
world's first large-scale carbon capture and storage system. It features a high-capacity pipeline
system that would connect carbon emitters across several industries to permanent sequestration
sites along the U.S. Gulf Coast.
Exxon is also working on what would be the world's biggest low-carbon hydrogen production
facility. It could produce up to 1 billion cubic feet of hydrogen per day, with 98% of the associated
carbon dioxide captured and stored. Exxon is working toward making a final investment decision on
this project by next year, with the potential to begin production in 2029.
The company is also working to develop its large-scale lithium resource in Arkansas. It set a bold
goal to produce enough lithium to power 1 million electric vehicles by 2030.
3 News Highlights: Top Global Marke
of the Day - Thursday at 1 AM ET
Dow Jones · 6h ago
· ·
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Community R
Disclaimer
No content on the Webull website shall be consid
recommendation or solicitation for the purchase
securities, options or other investment products
information and data on the website is for refere
and no historical data shall be considered as the
judging future trends.
Copyright © 2024 Webull. All Rights Reserved
https://www.webullapp.com/news-detail/119861661952...…tSetting=extraLarge&wbFontUnit=29&wbFontSize=41&isSubsNews=false
Page 1 of 3
News Detail
12/19/24, 7:18 AM
Producing more profits
Exxon's investments in low-carbon solutions could generate significant and growing earnings in the
coming decades. The company believes this platform could produce $2 billion in earnings by 2030.
Exxon is also investing to develop other new products in its downstream product solutions
business. These new product lines include its revolutionary Proxxima thermoset resin product,
advanced recycling, lower-emissions fuels, and carbon materials. The company has several projects
already underway, including a renewable diesel project in Canada, additional advanced recycling
units in Texas, and an expansion of its thermoset resin manufacturing facilities in Texas.
Add the incremental income from those new product solutions categories to the company's lower
carbon solutions businesses, and Exxon's new businesses could provide $3 billion in earnings
potential by 2030. The energy company expects that number to continue growing, potentially
reaching $13 billion by 2040. Earnings from these new products will likely continue rising in the
decades ahead as Exxon scales these new businesses. The company sees massive market
opportunities, with the potential addressable market of these new product categories surpassing
$2.3 trillion by 2050.
Exxon is investing with the future in mind
ExxonMobil plans to plow $30 billion into lower emissions opportunities by 2030. It's building out
several lower-carbon energy businesses to complement the increasingly lower-carbon focus of its
product solutions segment. That's part of its strategy to build the energy company of the future.
These investments will add several new income streams to its business over the coming years that
have the potential to grow significantly in the decades ahead. This strategy positions Exxon to
remain a leader in the energy sector for a very long time.
Matt DiLallo has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any
of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Disclaimer:This article represents the opinion of the author only. It does not represent the opinion of Webull, nor should it be
viewed as an indication that Webull either agrees with or confirms the truthfulness or accuracy of the information. It should not
be considered as investment advice from Webull or anyone else, nor should it be used as the basis of any investment decision.
Share your ideas here…
Log in
All Comments All Comments All Comments All Comments
https://www.webullapp.com/news-detail/119861661952...…tSetting=extraLarge&wbFontUnit=29&wbFontSize=41&isSubsNews=false
Page 2 of 3
News Detail
12/19/24, 7:18 AM
No data yet, let's see others
https://www.webullapp.com/news-detail/119861661952...…tSetting=extraLarge&wbFontUnit=29&wbFontSize=41&isSubsNews=false
Page 3 of 3

Your post is unreadable. A big wall of jumbled text with broken links and nonsensical footers.

Down at the bottom left is a "Preview" button.

Your post is unreadable. A big wall of jumbled text with broken links and nonsensical footers.

It also appears to be a verbatim copy of a Webull article, including the copyright notice! It's one thing to post excerpts, but that's the kind of thing that gets sites shut down.

Brian

ExxonMobil plans to plow $30 billion into lower emissions opportunities by 2030.

Exxon's investments in low-carbon solutions could generate significant and growing earnings in the
coming decades. The company believes this platform could produce $2 billion in earnings by 2030.

So invest $30B over the next 5 years (plus what has already been spent)and get $2B per year starting 2030. That is about 6.7% per year after 2030. Doesn't look like a very good press release to me.

The main driver is investing $140 billion
into major projects and its Permian Basin development plan over the next several years. It expects
these investments to generate returns of more than 30%.

Is that 30% per year, or total return on the $140B? If it is total return and the project has an average life span of 10 years, that is about 2.6% per year.

Aussi

https://x.com/zerohedge/status/1870124384226046106

Suggestion: Please don't post naked links

If you add a sentence or two describing what one is likely to find at the destination, you do the board a huge service. It takes you 30 seconds, and saves 100 people 2 minutes, net gain for the world 199.5 minutes.

Jim

"Exxon is down 18 of the past 20 days, and most oversold on record, because nobody uses gas any more"


Heh. nobody uses gas any more

Over 100 posts on xom, which proves it's undiscovered, completely unknown, and Unclew Warren should give some thought to drilling down on the space!! What a hoot.

“Over 100 posts on xom, which proves it's undiscovered, completely unknown, and Unclew Warren should give some thought to drilling down on the space!! What a hoot.”

Well, you might have heard of Apple before Buffett took a big stake. That one worked out ok.

Though to my mind the days of market beating performance from stock picking are over. They might get a good idea/get lucky from time to time. Otherwise they (and we) will be better off running the businesses and investing float in a quant type strategy.

I've been updating my file on oil and gas companies, their reserves and their market cap and enterprise values (EV). (The file includes 65 companies.) While the range of EV to proven reserves is large globally, the range for large companies in the Permian basin is much smaller. Mergers and acquisitions are probably the most telling examples. In M&As the buyers and sellers are both knowledgable. In all M&A cases the purchasing companies are basically just buying reserves, preferably close to their existing infrastructure. In several cases they said as much. For example, Vicki Hollub said that about OXY's purchase of Crown Rock at $22/barrel of oil equivalent (boe) of proven reserves.

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/crownrock-acquisit...

This buying of reserves goes for Occidental's purchase of Anadarko, and now of Crown Rock, Exxon's purchase of Pioneer Natural Resources and Chevron's purchase of Hess.

Of the companies we have been discussing, XOM, CVX and OXY, Occidental is currently the cheapest on an EV/proven reserves basis at #20/boe of proven reserves. The most expensive is ExxonMobil at $28/boe. The most expensive acquisition on that basis was Occidental's purchase of Anadarko at $38/boe of proven reserves.

Have a rec for a good post on EV/reserves. I would enjoy seeing the rest of the data.

It is no surprise that OXY rates well by this measure. However, should not one back out assets not directly related to reserves from EV? That could significantly reduce the spreads.

OXY has a relatively small chemicals business based on chlorine that adds to its EV. And has a larger midstream business relative to its size than the integrated majors. (They've sold some to fund recent acquisitions.) Don't these contribute to EV?

Chevron has a large refining business and a petrochemicals business as a 50% JV with another partner. Ditto?

ExxonMobil has the largest refining business worldwide of the private O&G companies. And has a chemicals business that it no longer compares to its O&G competitors except for Shell. It is number one or two in its major product lines compared with the world's largest chemical companies. Ditto?

The feedstock costs to these downstream/petrochemical businesses go down when O&G prices go down, and up vice-visa when oil prices go up. So this acts to reduce beta. A flywheel. That isn't true of OXY's chemicals business.

The scale of these larger companies provides them with scale, technology, capital, project management organizations, and access to worldwide markets in terms of future developments to discover new O&G and combat climate change that OXY simply doesn't have.

If Buffett is investing based only on oil prices, OXY's EV/Proven Reserves makes sense. But if they compete in the broader markets going forward, they don't? They simply don't have the resources to be competitive worldwide. I do think they'll be competitive in the Permian.

As an aside, XOM introduced the "cove" process to produce from the Permian. It was developed after purchasing a large position in the Delaware. The cove process works where you have a large, contiguous, resource base that permits longer laterals and a stepwise drilling program that addresses all reservoirs, not high grading. Now it's being widely copied in the Permian. That's behind a lot of the acquisitions being made. It offers a lot of reductions in costs and capital.

I like your simple EV/reserves insight and analysis. It's not a bad measure for much of the O&G industry, paticurlysmaller US companies. But I don't think it's that simple - there aren't many that are.

And Buffett hasn't shown any real interest in companies similar to OXY with better financials. Why?

I'll be clear. I don't pretend to understand Buffett's thinking. But it seems to be centered around cheap oil from the Permian - no more complicated. And with size limits.

While not as large as XOM, CHV and OXY, Devon energy has an EV of $29B and an EV/proven reserve of 16.6, around half that of XOM.

They made a very rational capital allocation decision earlier this year to prioritize share repurchases over dividend, as stock was very cheap. Devon has a very unusual (for USA) dividend policy which pays a high variable special dividend. This disappointed many investors who were in it for the high dividend yield and saw this as a dividend cut.

Have you analyzed DVN for a potential investment or do you own it?

I would encourage anyone interested in XOM to read the following book:

https://www.amazon.com/Exxon-Transforming-1973-200...

This is John D. Rockefeller's Co. and the culture has never changed for 100 years. Moreover, XOM is run by engineers not corporate bureaucrats. There is a LONG history of scale, cost controls/ongoing cost cutting, strong financial discipline and conservatism.

This is Fort Knox. Very Berkshire like culture (invest counter cyclicly etc).

"I would enjoy seeing the rest of the data."

Unfortunately I haven't updated most of the companies recently, some not since 2008.

I agree that other factors besides proven reserves contribute to value, especially in the case of XOM, which has so much value in other parts of their business. Other important factors are their ratio of oil to natural gas and their lifting costs. In addition, as you point out so well, quality of management and financial strength are important factors. Still, I expect that if we did a sum-of-the-parts valuation, that reserves would dominate the valuation in most cases. Same thing if we looked at timber companies. Maybe someone will offer a valuation of XOM that includes the value of its various pieces. There's no doubt that XOM is a major company in the oil and gas space, and it deserves a close look as a possible purchase.

This is John D. Rockefeller's Co. and the culture has never changed for 100 years. Moreover, XOM is run by engineers not corporate bureaucrats. There is a LONG history of scale, cost controls/ongoing cost cutting, strong financial discipline and conservatism.

The new president of XOM Upstream is Dan Ammann. Kinda looks like a corporate bureaucrat to me. He was appointed a couple of weeks ago. His degree is in economics.


Ammann began his career as an investment banker,[5] starting at Credit Suisse First Boston in 1993.[3] He moved to New York City in 1997,[1] and continued to work for Credit Suisse until moving to Morgan Stanley in 1999. In 2004,[3] he was appointed the position of managing director and head of industrial investment banking for Morgan Stanley.[6] At Morgan Stanley, Ammann worked with clients in the technology, service, and manufacturing industries, helping with mergers, acquisitions, raising capital, and restructuring.[7] He was also the lead advisor on GM's bankruptcy reorganization.[1]

Aussi

And Buffett hasn't shown any real interest in companies similar to OXY with better financials. Why? I'll be clear. I don't pretend to understand Buffett's thinking.

I too have no data, but that never stops me.
I had assumed that it's because of the high (highest?) US concentration.

The claimed future capital discipline being only a bonus factor.

As for why the purchases stopped (for a while), perhaps the recent acquisition was seen to be somewhat counter to the capital allocation plans that Mr Buffett thought had been promised?

Jim

I might be wrong, but I think Buffett stopped buying OXY (and CVX) shortly after CVX CEO visited him in omaha?

We all have to remember that those other folks on the board aren't just patterns of bits.

Jim

...or are we?...

Et tu, Mungo?
This "it from bit" nonsense reminds me of Descartes' (I think) hydraulic theory of the nervous system. Because that was the state of the art of technology in his time. Or the Silicon Valley idiot savants wondering if life is a simulation because they play too many video games and have no imagination.
At least the ancients' models acknowledged all three aspects of knowable universe - dnyata, dneya, dnyan (knower, known (object), knowledge). I thought quantum mechanics would firmly atrach back the knower into the two-legged stool that was Newtonian science. Alas.

the Silicon Valley idiot savants wondering if life is a simulation because they play too many video games and have no imagination.

Like those idiot savants of physicists you surely are familiar with, which are proposing experiments to test the simulation hypothesis, for example by searching for effects of granularity of space-time that would be seen in form of specific signatures in the cosmic microwave background radiation?

The WSJ says President elect Trump will pull the plug on the EV mandate from day 1. The Environmental Protection Agency's EV mandate has unrealistic targets of shifting at least 54% of production to EVs and 16% to hybrids by 2032, which would require closing of existing plants as soon as next year. Following James' recent note (attached) on the adoption of EV's, I listened to a presentation by Mark P Mills from Hillsdale College of the economic and social costs - (loss of freedom) - of the EV mandates, my brief notes for which I have also attached.

They highlight, for example, that whilst the drive train or motor may be a lot simpler than an IC engine, the battery or "fuel tank" has thousands of parts, thousands of welds, a cooling system, a structural system, power electronics, and safety systems. It's a very complex electrochemical machine that also wears out, is difficult to make. It is not simpler than an IC vehicle, just the complexity is in a different place. EV vehicles are as labour intensive as IC vehicles, although in a slightly different areas and skills. The EV supply chain overall is more labour intensive than for an IC, and if you include the upstream supply in mining etc, it results in 20% more labour than an IC car, with much of this upstream labour in

Mark P Mills on why EV’s will not work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8Nz-4eEBTw&t=0s
EV’s will gradually replace oil use. If it were the case that 50% of all vehicles were EV’s, which is functionally impossible to achieve in the remote future, it would only reduce the world’s oil needs by about 10%. Gasoline consumption reached a record this year and global oil demand continues to grow, albeit at a slightly slower pace -
EV’s are saving CO2. EV’s are “elsewhere” emitters. Obviously, there is the emission in charging, but there is also the emissions created in mining the resources needed for the battery. A typical Tesla battery – (the fuel tank) - weighs 1000 pounds, for which you need to mine 500,000 pounds of rock with oil burning machines. The rocks need to be transported, crushed and refined all with fossil fuel powered machines. The emissions associated with this can be higher than that associated with an IC engine through its life. As the resources deplete, this will get worse.
EV’s are inherently simpler vehicles. This is not the case. Whilst its engine is far simpler – the drive train or motor has only a few parts – the battery or “fuel tank” has thousands of parts, thousands of welds, a cooling system, a structural system, power electronics, and safety systems. It’s a very complex electrochemical machine that also wears out, is difficult to make. It is not simpler than an IC vehicle, just the complexity is in a different place. EV vehicles are as labour intensive as IC vehicles, although in a slightly different areas and skills. The EV supply chain overall is more labour intensive than for an IC, and if you include the upstream supply in mining etc, it results in 20% more labour than an IC car, with much of this upstream labour in China.
Mineral requirement. The vision of forced global EV rollout will require an increase in global mining of the relevant metals of between 400% and 7000% depending on the metal. There are no plans to open these mines, and those mines would take 10 – 16 years to roll out. The pursuit of these goals – (huge demand pressure) – will lift prices.
How do we get the energy to the EV’s? Putting aside the generation of the electricity or the chargers, the cost of transporting electricity is around 5 times that of transporting gasoline because of the infrastructure and cables needed. There are not the scale of transformers etc being built worldwide that would be needed.
To reduce gasoline consumption. A far better way would be to promote more efficient IC engines. Even the IEA did an analysis a few years ago which concluded that promotion of more efficient IC engines over the next decade would reduce oil use by more than would the shift to 300m EVs. Given that we know the former would be far cheaper than the latter, why are we doing this? The answer is the EV only lobby, who actually know all this, but by their own admission want to reduce the number of vehicles we have. They want “behavioural intervention”; consumers need to be convinced to drive less. They specifically call for “increasing the share of people worldwide who don’t have a car” from 45% to 70% by 2040. California already has a law that scales in the reduction of people’s annual milage by 25% from 30 years ago.
In the States, 0.5% of all commuters use a bicycle. 70% use a car driving alone. For those who cycle to work, the average age is 20 – 30, they are white and have a degree, so we are changing city streets with cycle lanes for this very specific group of “elites”, not for the population as a whole who are bearing the cost of this in terms of reduced road space and slower moving traffic. As people have shifted to working from home, they have de-urbanised, but the need to go to the office once or twice a week means they need to travel longer distances – “super commuters” - so want bigger cars. The idea that the need to travel is being replaced with the Internet is completely incorrect; the two go up with each other. Whilst the longer distanced means people will want autonomous cars, they will be personal as otherwise there would have to be so many available that there wouldn’t be enough space for them.

We will run out of political tolerance for this waste of money, which, like with renewable energy, is on an enormous scale.

EV proponents seem to have no understanding of I-squared R loss in electricity transmission lines. (Those who do understand ignore it, because reasons.)

Double the length of the transmission line and the loss is doubled.

The losses of transporting a gallon of liquid are not even doubled when being transported 2400 miles vs. 24 miles.

I certainly didnt know. glad to learn something new, Joules law

Charlie, while most here do not exactly welcome you, I think you from time to time make some very refreshing and challenging unpopular comments (nowadays more so than formerly when you posted only naked links), comments needed to not too easily bath in mainstream group think.

Thank you!

What is not true that I have posted?

What is not true that I have posted?

Well, since you asked, one reason is a lot of what's in that post is simply false.

For example, the first sentence ;you quoted is "EV’s will gradually replace oil use. If it were the case that 50% of all vehicles were EV’s, which is functionally impossible to achieve in the remote future, it would only reduce the world’s oil needs by about 10%. "

Motor vehicle fuel currently accounts for a hair under half of global crude oil use. Thus, a one half reduction would reduce global crude demand by about 24-25%, not by 10%. One could go on.

It's a post pushing a point of view and either selecting or making up "facts" to support that goal, not a conclusion drawn from a set of actual facts. Not many folks remember those, I suppose.

Jim

Watch the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8Nz-4eEBTw

What is not true that I have posted?

This is not true -

"I think the the big the real tell was what happened with the DTP vaccine, which is diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis. Because of Gates pushing this this shot, it's now the number one vaccine in the world, DTP."

"And it's mainly given in Africa. It was that particular shot is discontinued in the United States because it was killing 1 out of every killing or badly injuring 1 out of every 300 kids who took it. We ended it in Europe and the United States, but there's Gates giving it to every kid in Africa. And in 2017, he asked the Danish government for money to support this program and he said, we've saved we've saved 20,000,000 kids. The Danish government said, can you show us the data?"

FALSE: DTaP does not "kill or badly injure" 1 in 300 kids.

FALSE: DTaP use has not been "discontinued in the USA". In fact, typically kids in the USA receive 5 DTaP shots between birth and age 7.

https://www.immunize.org/wp-content/uploads/catg.d...

Watch the video...

Unmhh, no thanks.

Counter suggestion:
Read some debunking from reputable sources.

In your life in general, try seeking information from sources that aren't Youtube, Twitter/X, Mr Kennedy Jr, Mr Musk, talk radio, or the Babadook. Try some websites ending in .gov or .edu, perhaps .ac.uk or the BBC if you're not feeling parochial. Wikipedia isn't a terrible starting point. Or read a physical text book.

The interesting thing is that there are actual facts out there if you look for them even a bit. If it's worth spending the effort to post stuff on the internet, it's worth the effort to take a moment to find out whether what you're posting is real. I mean, why not? We all do much better in life reading things grounded in observable reality rather than myths back-fit to an agenda. Don't post stuff that seems interesting, post stuff that is true. Don't READ stuff that seems interesting, read stuff that is true.

Jim

Libtards will not die

Information warfare

The people have spoken

Why would anyone believe.gov or .edu? Maybe you’re just joking. Good one!

Try some websites ending in .gov

Sounds good, but is naive. Someone here remembers the heater discussion about the origin of the SARS-CoV2 virus? Not just out there, but also on this board? Me and the one or two others who posted info material supporting the lab origin theory "of course" were treated dismissive as it was "clear" that it was far more likely that
the origin was Wuhan's animal market than that Lab.

That mainstream narrative came into being because leading virologists (Fauci, Germany's Drosten etc.) immediately (interesting in itself!) published an according paper and from then on politicians and all the reputable media repeated that narrative constantly until everybody believed it.

So anyone suggesting otherwise must have been a conspiracy theorist --- which also is a synonym for "right-wing extremist", the ultimate tool for pushing that one in a corner.

Now to some interesting facts (bold by me) from a ".gov" website, from

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10234839/
(NCBI = National Center for Biotechnology Information, part of NHI = National Health Institute)

The alternative scenario is that of a laboratory accident after gain-of-function manipulation of SARS-CoV2. First, there is the absence of identified intermediate hosts after three years of pandemics. Second, why Wuhan? This megapolis where the first cases of Covid-19 were detected is remote from the areas of bat reservoirs. In the early phase of the pandemic, the absence of secondary outbreaks that would have accompanied the trade of living animals is surprising. During the emergence of other recent viral respiratory diseases transmitted by animals on markets, as SARS and H7N9 avian influenza, multiple scattered clusters were observed [32], [33], [34]. In Wuhan and elsewhere, researchers have practiced GoF on sarbecoviruses. According to publications, chimeric viruses were created in 2015, followed by 8 more viruses in 2017, two of which were pathogenic to humanized mice. All indications are that the origin of SARS-CoV2 in December 2019 was very recent, a hypothesis corroborated by epidemiological models. We also observe very low genetic diversity of initial isolates, contrasting with the high diversity that viruses can deploy in a few weeks. Moreover, the SARS-CoV2 was immediately highly contagious, witnessing a remarkable adaptation of this bat virus to humans. The presence of a furin site in SARS-CoV2, which is not found in any other known sarbecovirus, is also a singular feature that remains to be explained.
......
......
In March 2018, a joint funding application was submitted to DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), a U.S. research funding agency. It involved teams from WIV and the U.S. non-governmental organization EcoHealth Alliance. It is proposed to search bat coronavirus samples collected in Yunnan by the WIV team, which are genetically close SARS-CoV1 and possibly bearing furin cleavage sites. The project stipulates that, in case of failure to find such viruses, researchers intend to manipulate SARS-like coronaviruses to increase binding affinity to human lung tissue and possibly to insert furin sites at the same location as those found in SARS-CoV2 [47].

- "WIV" is the Wuhan Lab.
- Teams of this Lab applied at DARPA for "gain of function" research
- for exactly that modification of the "Furin site" which made that Corona virus so highly infectious in humans
- that virus which can be traced back to Wuhan

All known then already, posted then by me, "of course" dismissed. Because then no website with the ".gov" ending dared revealing those irritating facts which were in opposition to the propagated narrative.

Interesting fact on the side: Leading suppressors of the lab theory were renowned virologists, like Germany's "Super-Virologist" Drosten. I don't know about his counterpart Fauci, but Drosten always was a strong promoter of "gain of function" research --- but saying that this might have caused the Pandemie would have meant he would have shoot himself in the foot, cutting himself from further funding of "gain of function" research = career and reputational suicide.

Could it be that ".gov" websites are not the neutral and unbiased information source you might think they are?

Further point in case: The German scandal about the world-renowned reputable RKI (Robert-Koch-Institut): The RKI published internal protocols about discussions during the Pandemie only with many parts "geschwärzt" (What's the English word? "Blacked out"? It's about making passages unreadable).

The scandal initiated when the original protocols were leaked. What was "blacked out" were for example among the scientists about Jens Spahn's (then Germany's health Minister) public statement of the "Pandemie der Ungeimpften" ("Pandemic of the Unvaccinated"), claiming that people who refuse to be vaccinated are responsible for the Pandemie by spreading the virus. He claimed that while it was already clear that vaccination only protects oneself, not the others, that vaccinated ones also spread the virus.

In the protocols those scientists argue that science does not support the public claim of Germany's Health Minister --- but also say that "above" it's not wished for that the RKI says so, therefore contradicting him. This was said even by Wheeler, the RKI's boss!

So much for the unbiased reporting of Germany's official leading Health Institution, which is supposed to be independent from political influence.

Don't believe it? Google "RKI Files" - - - You don't have to look at conspiracy websites, it's all public now.

My conclusion from all that came to daylight now, years after the Pandemic: You can only rely on ".gov" if the issue it's about is politically neutral, otherwise bureaucrats, scientists etc. in those institutions simply to protect themselves, their reputation, their funding, their careers won't inform you - - - or even misinform you.

Read some debunking from reputable sources.

In your life in general, try seeking information from sources that aren't Youtube, Twitter/X, Mr Kennedy Jr, Mr Musk, talk radio, or the Babadook. Try some websites ending in .gov or .edu, perhaps .ac.uk or the BBC if you're not feeling parochial. Wikipedia isn't a terrible starting point. Or read a physical text book.

Problem is, so many of those supposedly "reputable sources" have been flat out lies and lies by omission. Trust once lost is difficult to regain.

Correct

MSM and related has been destroyed and discredited.

Audience is dominated by Musk on X and Joe Rogan.

People want truth.

Why would anyone believe.gov or .edu?

Are you trying to tell us that men can't become women by putting on a dress? That women can't become men by growing a sketchy beard?

I have it on good authority that they CAN. .gov & .edu sites have told me so, and if you can't believe gov & edu, who can you trust?

Exhibit A:

https://x.com/tomselliott/status/18726729313961782...

Exhibit B:

https://t.me/EdwardDowdReal/1164

Sounds good, but is naive. Someone here remembers the heater discussion about the origin of the SARS-CoV2 virus? Not just out there, but also on this board? Me and the one or two others who posted info material supporting the lab origin theory "of course" were treated dismissive as it was "clear" that it was far more likely that the origin was Wuhan's animal market than that Lab.

I think it's worthwhile making the distinction between the "bioweapon invented in a lab" conspiracy theory justly mocked here and elsewhere, versus the all-too-plausible "leak from a lab doing respectable work without tight enough controls".

It's pretty depressing how many infections and (more rarely) external leaks there are from otherwise well run labs. Usually they peter out quickly, but not always.

Jim

The Big Story

As President Joe Biden’s team weighs preemptive blanket pardons for figures such as former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases head Dr. Anthony Fauci, and as Democrats drape themselves in the flag to defend “woke” senior Pentagon officials against an expected onslaught from Trump “loyalists,” a handful of recent reports support longstanding allegations that the U.S. defense and intelligence establishment played a role in causing, and then covering up the origins of, the COVID-19 pandemic.

In an interview with the British paper The Sun published on Sunday, retired Pentagon intelligence official Jon Myers said that in October 2019, he began briefing the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, had leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China. If true, that would suggest that the U.S. intelligence community and Pentagon brass were aware of the virus—and aware that it likely came from a lab—two months before the officially acknowledged start of the pandemic. Myers, a former Marine Corps officer who served as a director of regional intelligence at the Pentagon from 2018 to 2020, told the Sun:

This [COVID-19] was briefed in October and November 2019 as a lab leak. It’s important that people realise. It was in the intelligence. We briefed it. It was accepted. I briefed it numerous times about a viral outbreak and that it was from a lab. Over the course of late November and December, it probably came up six or seven times in briefings. Nobody said, “hey I heard that was not true, it was not from a lab.” It was just stated as fact.

Yet by April 2020 (at which point Myers had retired), the JCS had publicly assessed that the virus had a natural origin—an assessment that Myers dismissed as both “political” and concocted for the purposes of “self-preservation.” Myers’ interview follows a report earlier this month from the GOP-led House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic (HSSCP), which revealed that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had received classified intelligence about the COVID-19 outbreak in China before the Chinese government announced it in a public notice on PubMed Dec. 31, 2019. Two previous Democrat-led congressional reports—one from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the other from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, both in 2022—had claimed the DIA did not learn of the virus until the New Year’s Eve PubMed announcement.

Though Myers does not say who was trying to preserve themselves or why, there has long been speculation (including at The Scroll) that the virus that emerged in Wuhan might have had a connection to the U.S. defense and intelligence establishment. In 2018, Peter Daszak of the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance (EHA) and virologist Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina (UNC) submitted a research grant proposal, known as DEFUSE, to the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Though DARPA rejected the proposal, drafts and notes from the proposal revealed that Baric and Daszak intended to use gain-of-function engineering to create a virus with the exact genomic specifications of SARS-CoV-2 at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Molecular biologist Richard Ebright called this revelation the “equivalent of a smoking gun” for establishing the responsibility of Daszak and his associates for the pandemic after journalist Emily Kopp reported it in January.

EHA received more than $123 million in funding from the U.S. government between 2013 and 2020, including $39 million from the Pentagon and $64.7 million from the U.S. Agency for International Aid and Development (USAID), which has historically been used as a cutout for the Central Intelligence Agency. A CIA whistleblower told the HSSCP last year that after six of the seven analysts tasked by the agency to investigate the virus’s origins concluded that it had likely escaped from a lab, the CIA offered them “financial incentives” to reverse their decision, as Tablet reported at the time. In the declassified COVID-19 origins report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the CIA said it was “unable to determine” the origin of the virus.

And at least some former senior health officials suspect a U.S. coverup. In a podcast appearance last month, former director of the Centers for Disease Control Robert Redfield appeared to endorse the theory that the DEFUSE proposal was the ultimate source of the pandemic. Speaking on The Dana Parish Podcast, Redfield said he believed COVID-19 was “intentionally engineered as a part of a biodefense program” and that the U.S. government, including the Pentagon, the National Institutes of Health, and USAID bore “substantial” responsibility for the pandemic. Identifying Baric, specifically, as the “mastermind” behind the virus, Redfield said, “There is a real possibility that the virus’s birthplace was Chapel Hill,” North Carolina—the home of Baric’s employer, UNC.

Wake up, sheeple. The powers have been lying to you for their own ends. What everybody is telling you is suspect. Don't fall for their lies.

The real, unknown, secret truth is ... most of what the government says is actually right in most G7 countries. Fallible? yes. Occasionally weird or even misguided? Sure. Boring? Inevitably.

But far, far more accurate than nutbar Youtube screeds? You betcha.

The big lies are coming from the engagement-driven rather than knowledge-driven media (and a few Asian propaganda departments), not from bored civil servants and diligent medical researchers. Occam's razor: telling lies is extremely profitable, so there is rarely any need to invent deeper explanations or imagine vast conspiracies. There are no secrets which involve thousands of people.

Jim

How many jabs did you get?

I hope you are wearing your mask when typing to the board.

Amazing you are still defending COVID 19 Vaccines after everything that has transpired.

So here's the deal - remember when "experts" kept telling us what to do during COVID? Turns out they got pretty much everything wrong. Like, spectacularly wrong. We're talking 19 major things they completely screwed up, from how the virus spreads to whether masks actually work (spoiler alert: those cloth masks were basically fashion accessories).

Image
Dr. Fauci is the patron saint of TERRIBLE COVID policies. He was wrong on SO MANY POINTS. It's time to set the record straight.

Did he get anything right?

Origin of the disease—wrong
Transmission—wrong
Asymptomatic spread—wrong
PCR testing—wrong
Fatality rate—wrong
Lockdowns—wrong
Community triggers—wrong
Business closures—wrong
School closures—wrong
Quarantining the healthy—wrong
Impact on youth—wrong
Hospital overload—wrong
Plexiglass barriers—wrong
Social distancing—wrong
Outdoor spread—wrong
Masks—wrong
Variant impact—wrong
Natural immunity—wrong
Vaccine efficacy—wrong
Vaccine injury—wrong
Last year the Norfolk Group just dropped a bomb of a document laying out all these failures. And it's not just Monday morning quarterbacking - they've got the receipts. Real studies showing how natural immunity was actually legit (while Fauci pretended it didn't exist), data proving schools could've stayed open (looking at you, Sweden), and evidence that maybe, just maybe, locking healthy people in their homes wasn't the brilliant strategy they claimed.

Listen, I'm not here to say "I told you so" (okay, maybe a little), but we need to talk about this. Because if we don't learn from how badly our "experts" messed up, we're just asking for a repeat performance next time around. And honestly? I don't think any of us can handle another round of plexiglass theater and double masking.

Let's break down exactly how they got it wrong, and more importantly, why they kept doubling down even when the evidence said otherwise. Buckle up - this is gonna be a wild ride through the greatest public health face-plant in modern history.

These are the questions WE want answered!

TRANSMISSION

Why did officials insist on surface transmission protocols when evidence showed primarily respiratory spread?
Why weren't hospitals evaluating transmission patterns early to inform policy?
Why did the CDC not conduct studies on actual transmission patterns in schools and workplaces?
Why was outdoor transmission overemphasized despite minimal evidence?
Why weren't transmission studies prioritized to guide evidence-based policies?
ASYMPTOMATIC SPREAD

What evidence supported the claim that asymptomatic spread was a major driver?
Why did health officials emphasize asymptomatic spread without solid data?
Why were resources wasted testing asymptomatic people when they could have focused on symptomatic cases?
How did the emphasis on asymptomatic spread affect public trust when evidence didn't support it?
What data actually existed on true asymptomatic (vs presymptomatic) transmission rates?
PCR TESTING

Why did the CDC insist on developing its own test rather than using WHO's?
Why weren't cycle threshold values standardized or reported?
Why did labs use cycle thresholds up to 40 when this led to false positives?
Why wasn't PCR testing prioritized for high-risk populations early on?
How did high cycle thresholds affect case counts and policy decisions?
FATALITY RATE

Why were infection fatality rates not properly stratified by age from the beginning?
Why were deaths "with COVID" vs "from COVID" not distinguished?
How did inflated fatality rates affect public perception and policy?
Why weren't accurate age-stratified fatality rates clearly communicated?
How did misrepresenting fatality rates affect public trust?
LOCKDOWNS

Why were lockdowns implemented without cost-benefit analysis?
Why were lockdown harms (mental health, delayed medical care, etc.) ignored?
What evidence supported the effectiveness of lockdowns?
Why weren't less restrictive focused protection measures tried first?
How many excess deaths were caused by lockdown policies?
Why weren't regional/seasonal factors considered in lockdown decisions?
COMMUNITY TRIGGERS

Why were arbitrary case numbers used to trigger restrictions?
Why weren't hospital capacity metrics prioritized over case counts?
How were community trigger thresholds determined?
Why weren't triggers adjusted based on actual risk levels?
Why weren't clear exit criteria established for restrictions?
BUSINESS CLOSURES

What evidence supported closing small businesses while keeping large retailers open?
Why weren't occupancy limits tried before full closures?
How many businesses were unnecessarily destroyed?
Why weren't economic impacts weighed against minimal health benefits?
What data supported effectiveness of business closures?
SCHOOL CLOSURES

Why were schools closed despite early evidence of low risk to children?
Why did the US ignore data from European schools that stayed open?
Why weren't the developmental/educational harms to children considered?
How did school closures affect mental health and suicide rates in youth?
Why weren't teachers unions' influence on closure decisions examined?
What evidence supported claims that schools were major transmission vectors?
QUARANTINING THE HEALTHY

Why was mass quarantine implemented without precedent or evidence?
Why weren't focused protection measures tried instead?
What was the cost-benefit analysis of quarantining low-risk groups?
How did mass quarantine affect mental health?
Why weren't vulnerable populations prioritized instead?
IMPACT ON YOUTH

Why weren't developmental impacts on children considered?
How did isolation affect mental health and suicide rates?
What were the educational losses from remote learning?
Why weren't sports/activities preserved for youth wellbeing?
How did masks/distancing affect social development?
What were the impacts on college students' mental health and development?
HOSPITAL OVERLOAD

Why weren't early treatment protocols developed to prevent hospitalizations?
Why were field hospitals built but never used?
How did "flattening the curve" messaging affect hospital preparations?
Why weren't at-risk populations protected to prevent hospitalizations?
What was the actual vs projected hospital capacity usage?
PLEXIGLASS BARRIERS

What evidence supported effectiveness of barriers?
Why weren't airflow patterns considered?
How did barriers affect ventilation?
What was the cost-benefit of barrier installation?
Why weren't barrier recommendations updated when shown ineffective?
SOCIAL DISTANCING

What evidence supported 6-foot distancing?
Why wasn't distancing adjusted based on ventilation/masks/context?
How did arbitrary distance rules affect businesses/schools?
Why wasn't 3-foot distancing considered adequate earlier?
What research supported outdoor distancing requirements?
OUTDOOR SPREAD

Why were outdoor gatherings restricted despite minimal transmission risk?
Why were beaches/parks closed?
Why weren't outdoor activities encouraged as safer alternatives?
How did outdoor restrictions affect mental/physical health?
What evidence supported masks outdoors?
MASKS

Why were mask mandates implemented without RCT evidence?
Why weren't potential harms of masking children considered?
Why were cloth masks promoted despite ineffectiveness?
How did masks affect learning/development in children?
Why weren't mask policies updated when studies showed limited benefit?
Why was natural immunity discounted in mask policies?
VARIANT IMPACT

Why were variants used to justify continued restrictions?
How did variant fears affect vaccine confidence?
Why weren't policies adjusted for milder variants?
How did variant messaging affect public trust?
Why weren't seasonal patterns considered in variant projections?
NATURAL IMMUNITY

Why was natural immunity ignored in policy decisions?
Why were recovered people required to vaccinate?
Why wasn't natural immunity studied more thoroughly?
How did dismissing natural immunity affect public trust?
Why were natural immunity studies from other countries ignored?
VACCINE EFFICACY

Why were initial efficacy claims not properly qualified?
Why wasn't waning efficacy communicated earlier?
How did overselling efficacy affect public trust?
Why weren't breakthrough cases tracked properly?
Why were boosters promoted without clear evidence of benefit?
VACCINE INJURY

Why weren't adverse events properly tracked/investigated?
Why were vaccine injuries downplayed or dismissed?
How did VAERS data interpretation affect public trust?
Why weren't age-stratified risk-benefit analyses conducted?
Why weren't early warning signals investigated more thoroughly?
How did dismissing injuries affect vaccine confidence?
We have a LOT of work to do and THANKFULLY we may have people in charge who are willing to ask these questions

I think it's worthwhile making the distinction between the "bioweapon invented in a lab" conspiracy theory justly mocked here and elsewhere, versus the all-too-plausible "leak from a lab doing respectable work without tight enough controls".

Jim, my point was not about whatever strange websites might have written about "bioweapon" (I am not familiar with them) but about what you said: "reputable sources", with endings like .gov or .edu, implying that they can be trusted (btw: Before Corona I thought likewise).

My point was that those for you reputable sources in the first years were very quick and definite to deny that this option is "all-too-plausible", au contraire constantly repeating that it's extremely unlikely, this way creating a mainstream narrative and pushing that "all-too-plausible" option into the conspiracy theorist corner - - - and with it the few reputable Virologists daring to saying otherwise.

That then you were NOT able to read on the NCBI/NHI website what they only admit nowadays, that this option is "all-too-plausible" - - - and also not from any of the "reputable" media sources. There was a politically wished for narrative, and that dominated everything, so much so that the most reputable Institutions caved in to political pressure and suppressed facts against their own better knowledge, see "RKI files".

He is just wrong on everything. It is irrefutable at this point. News and data is overwhelming. Name on thing on COVID that was true? Same guy has lack of TRUE understanding on continuing demand for fossil fuels Vs. Climate Change Hoax.

Wake up, sheeple. The powers have been lying to you for their own ends. What everybody is telling you is suspect. Don't fall for their lies.

The real, unknown, secret truth is ... most of what the government says is actually right in most G7 countries. Fallible? yes. Occasionally weird or even misguided? Sure. Boring? Inevitably.

And:

There are no secrets which involve thousands of people.

Perhaps my favorite hero is a man, Andrew Marshall, largely unknown to the world. He was a man, much like and competitive with, Charlie Munger. Extremely intelligent, self-educated in a broad range of subjects, and worked mostly behind the scenes. He was the "grey eminence" mind behind US defense policy from Nixon to Obama. Perhaps his most famous quote was:

"There is only so much stupidity one man can prevent."

But Jim keeps trying.

Thanks Jim.

Tex

My point was that those for you reputable sources in the first years were very quick and definite to deny that this option is "all-too-plausible", au contraire constantly repeating that it's extremely unlikely, this way creating a mainstream narrative and pushing that "all-too-plausible" option into the conspiracy theorist corner - - - and with it the few reputable Virologists daring to saying otherwise.

Not true. I disparaged the conspiracy theory that the disease was purposely created as a bioweapon in the Wuhan lab, which is what was being discussed. As mentioned, far too few people discussing the subject make the distinction between the two "lab leak" stories: bioweapon versus goof-up. (I am no more fond of the Chinese internet meme that it was created as a bioweapon in an American lab).

My comment about "all too plausible" is primarily an observation of the fact that most of the world's disease research labs are not nearly as good at rigorous biocontainment as they should be. Any story about a lab leak is a lot more plausible than it should be.

I'd grant that a boring *leak* from the lab is possible, if only for the simple reasoning that the lab had some bat viruses in it and lab leaks are depressingly common.* In my opinion this is not the likely story, but I wouldn't completely rule it out--certainty without evidence is not a good habit, and unfortunately the precise origin remains uncertain. As more study has been done, I gather it seems an even more remote possibility than it was. Simple infection from animal contact fits the bill pretty well: there are way too many species of bat out there to feel good about their numberless viruses : )

If the virus spent some time in an intermediate host, I imagine that would tend to point away from a lab leak. The most likely animal involved in a lab leak is a human.

Jim

* perhaps the most likely scenario of all is that there have indeed been leaks at that lab, but this particular infection wasn't one of them.

Trump trolling Gates tonight on-line

Gates finger prints all over COVID.

Jim will be deleting his posts soon.

Conspiracy Theory?

https://nypost.com/2024/05/27/opinion/fauci-amp-co...

Fauci & Co. need to pay a price for funding Wuhan lab research — and trying to cover it up

"Problem is, so many of those supposedly "reputable sources" have been flat out lies and lies by omission. Trust once lost is difficult to regain."

That is crazy talk spread by people who are taking advantage of your ignorance and naivety.

Besides, there are multiple times that Youtube, Twitter/X, Mr Kennedy Jr, Mr Musk, talk radio, or the Babadook are caught spreading false information, but the nutty people still continue to use those sources. Why don't they ever lose trust in sources that continually lie to them?

Charlie, wasting your time here, they will tell you the sun is shining at midnight, if you disagree *you* are a conspiracy theorist, sheep, bigot, racist. Luckily they’ll never win again, cause we ain’t that stupit.!!!

You don't even need to be smart to figure this out anymore.

It is irrefutable and giant is awake.

”For example, the first sentence ;you quoted is "EV’s will gradually replace oil use. If it were the case that 50% of all vehicles were EV’s, which is functionally impossible to achieve in the remote future, it would only reduce the world’s oil needs by about 10%. "

Motor vehicle fuel currently accounts for a hair under half of global crude oil use. Thus, a one half reduction would reduce global crude demand by about 24-25%, not by 10%. One could go on.

It's a post pushing a point of view and either selecting or making up "facts" to support that goal, not a conclusion drawn from a set of actual facts. Not many folks remember those, I suppose.”



Is it really that simple? Can anybody know for sure until we get there? We are talking about the unknown future. Among other things the exact answer I assume will depend on how much oil will be used in the future manufacturing of materials, mining for batteries and transporting of the EVs before we can start driving them. And on what the future energy source mix will be for the electric grids we will all use when charging the cars. It looks as if you have assumed all these factors to be zero. Is it possible that CrankyCharlie may have used different assumptions than you did in his calculation?

Maybe your assumptions are superior to Charlie’s if analyzed logically in detail, but to say with confidence that he is wrong and that the correct answer is somewhere between 24-25 per cent while accusing him of “pushing a point of view” and “selecting or making up facts” doesn’t feel exactly like it’s promoting an open discussion.

The initial point in time at which a moderator steps in and closes this thread has long passed. The next best point is right now

"leak from a lab doing respectable work without tight enough controls".

Gain-of-function research was specifically forbidden in the US because of the risks. Fauci got around that restriction by having it done in other countries which have much lower safety standards & procedures. He belongs in jail for life.

All of which has nothing to do with Berkshire.

Besides, there are multiple times that Youtube, Twitter/X, Mr Kennedy Jr, Mr Musk, talk radio, or the Babadook are caught spreading false information, but the nutty people still continue to use those sources. Why don't they ever lose trust in sources that continually lie to them?

I think some of you guys just don't get it.

Pretty much EVERYBODY is lying. Some are lies of commission; many are lies of omission.

Some are lying on purpose, some are just wrong, and/or believe every cockamamie story that comes along.

The people of the USSR had an advantage over us, in that they knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that their government lied about everything.

Whenever you hear a story about something big/important, always ask "cui bono"?

Motor vehicle fuel currently accounts for a hair under half of global crude oil use. Thus, a one half reduction would reduce global crude demand by about 24-25%, not by 10%.

Where does the electricity to charge the EVs come from? You can't just assume that it just magically appear. It will largely come from oil, gas, and coal generating plants.

EVs won't drastically eliminate the use of oil, they will just change where the oil is burned.

You don't even need to be smart to figure this out anymore.

It is irrefutable and giant is awake.

And this is the "tell" Charlie. Most reasonable people's position is that it's possible to come from the lab, but everything points to the source being animals and not the lab, so we think it's very highly likely that it came from the animals. Whey do we think that?

1. All the past pandemics came from animals, not a lab.

2. There was a different version of SARS that evolved about 15 years earlier and it was traced to animals.

3. The German expert fellow whose lab created the PCR test, said that if he were to do engineering, he'd get rid of X first, and that is glaring, so he doesn't think it was created in a lab.

4. We have had lab leaks of viruses before. They were squelched. We knew and admitted they were lab leaks. No one doubts it.

5. Faucci doesn't know everything that is going on in all of the authorized expenditures. He asked his staff if gain of function research was going on and they said no. The GOF that was going on doesn't meet the technical definition of GOF research, so his staff wazs telling the truth to him as they knew it.

6. The floor swabs of the suspected animal stalls were finally tested and they contain animal and Covid19 traces. So at or very near the time of initial spread, Covid19 was present there.

So a reasonable person would come to a conclusion that it's highly likely to come from animals, while there is an outside chance it was created in a lab, but they wouldn't speak in terms of absolute certainty.

SNIP Confirmation bias is the tendency to search, interpret, and recall information in a way that aligns with our pre-existing values, opinions, or beliefs. It refers to the ability to recollect information best when it amplifies what we already believe SNIP

When you speak about this subject you throw off huge "tells" such as: You don't even need to be smart to figure this out anymore.

It is irrefutable and giant is awake.

You are not a giant. It isn't irrefutable. You need to be both smart *AND* disciplined. It doesn't occur to you that you don't have discipline as you leap into the comfortable conclusion bias pool, where, surrounded by other people agreeing with your confirmation bias, you affirm that you are smarter than all of those doubter sheeple. It's comfortable, but not disciplined, to think you are smarter than all those sheeple.

Holy thread drift Batman! Have mercy on our good board and stay on topic!

1.....6
So a reasonable person would come to a conclusion that ....

Only if your "1...6" would be the whole and complete story, if you exclude all other points one could make in this case.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search, interpret, and recall information in a way that aligns with our pre-existing values, opinions, or beliefs

What if the search for information (no, not on conspiracy sites) during/after the Pandemic brought one (me) to au contraire change his opinions and beliefs?

A final comment, for rayvt: Brother, it's hopeless.

Amazing people still are asleep. How many jabs have you received?

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/former-state-dep...

Revelations that senior US intelligence officials in the early days of the virus pandemic suppressed research indicating a Chinese lab leak as the origin of Covid-19 surfaced in a new Wall Street Journal report titled "Behind Closed Doors: The Spy-World Scientists Who Argued Covid Was a Lab Leak" late this week.

https://x.com/BusyDrT/status/1873084198166421622

You going to fall for this again?

Anyone who posts a link to zero hedge reveals a serious lack of intelligence or, worse, is deliberately reaching to known garbage to make an indefensible point.

There are no exceptions to this rule.

You are right. Should have linked to CNN or NY Times.

Anyone who posts a link to zero hedge reveals a serious lack of intelligence or, worse, is deliberately reaching to known garbage to make an indefensible point.

Yeah, it's embarrassing...

"Overall, we rate ZeroHedge an extreme right-biased conspiracy website based on the promotion of false/misleading/debunked information that routinely attempts to denigrate the left."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/

What is false?

Very last post:

I am wishing all a great New Year, whatever there opinions might be, whereever in the political spectrum they might be, whether they are rich or poor.

May you all have a good Year 2025!

Imagine being so stubborn and hopeless that in Dec 2024 you still can’t figure out who got it right the past four years? Who lost 40 percent of their viewers, which networks? Did the New York Times lose half their readers? Why? Unbelievable denial. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/msnbc/

Msnbc, “ mixed, leans left”, lmfao.

TDS is real

Congrats Charlie, the same experts who attacked me and called me names for predicting Biden, “ would do the right thing”, and not be the Dem nominee are now attacking you. That gives you a credibility rating of, 100 percent. Keep it coming bud. ☮️