Decarbonization: The Divestment Death Cycle

Published on
December 9th, 2019
Duration
35 minutes


Decarbonization: The Divestment Death Cycle

The Expert View ·
Featuring Rob West

Published on: December 9th, 2019 • Duration: 35 minutes

Rob West, founder of Thunder Said Energy – an energy consulting firm, understands that the total decarbonization of the energy industry will be fueled by political attitudes around the world over the next few decades. However, West argues that proponents of ESG investing fail to understand that this transition will involve massive investment in fossil fuels and cooperation with villainized oil majors. He explains his framework for total decarbonization of the energy industry by 2050, and highlights the new technologies and investment vehicles that will be necessary to drive the transition. Filmed on October 18, 2019 in New York.

Comments

Transcript

  • PO
    Phillip O.
    11 June 2020 @ 04:52
    I finally saw some of Rob’s excel models today. They are total garbage. He has zero understanding of basic carbon intensity calculations for California LCFS credits. (Low Carbon Fuel Standards) This is one of the largest and highest value carbon pricing markets globally. How can he not understand this?!? This guy is a dumbass. Don’t buy his research. Seriously. He had ZERO understanding of how carbon trading markets actually function. He couldn’t even correctly calculate how credits are generated. And this model was an EXTRA cost on top of his research. Total garbage. @raoul and @RV please only bring real experts on RV. Stop letting half rate snake oil salesmen come on RV to try to sell their garbage research or raise funding. Return to the original RV model of less content with only superstar credential guests.
  • TS
    Todd S.
    10 March 2020 @ 02:23
    Would be very curious to get an update from Rob with all the recent decimation in the energy space....
  • IS
    Ionel S.
    22 February 2020 @ 09:07
    I’ve just rewatched it ! Fantastic stuff! Bring RoB back please !!! And why not a Energy week production in the future?
  • ME
    Mark E.
    1 January 2020 @ 00:37
    Apart from his obvious intelligence and clear love of his work, Rob has a very compelling style of presentation; a voice that is very pleasant to listen to and an infectious enthusiasm that is hard to resist. I really like this guy and even though I might not agree with everything he says, he makes his argument very well and makes me want to hear more from him. So pleased you brought him back and I'm looking forward to hearing from him again in the coming year.
  • ES
    Elizabeth S.
    24 December 2019 @ 17:53
    I learned a lot about how to reduce CO2 output while using fossil fuels. Thanks for the great video that informed me about a ton of technologies I didn’t know were in development.
  • SS
    Sam S.
    23 December 2019 @ 19:22
    CO2 is used by most all plant life as their breathing input. Oxygen is their output. Common sense that CO2 is not the major issue. More CO2 registered in 7000 year old ice core samples than anytime during the industrial age. Sulfur Dioxide and similar sulfur output from volcanoes and man made industry is a major pollution and poison! We need to reduce pollution of ALL kinds. The Ocean Shipping Business was except from Paris Climate Accords until 2021---if I have that right. Ocean vessels are HUGE polluters. They now are required to install scrubbers to eliminate sulfur/pollution output. We keep destroying forests, the jungles around the world and plant/animal life, we'll be in real trouble. I do like his promotion of Natural Gas! When the big oil players get involved, that's when new energy will become the main stay. The cost to mine rare earths, build these new technology drivers and everything else in this discussion, takes OIL. Everything we have or do in the world has been touch by OIL.
    • Sv
      Sid v.
      23 December 2019 @ 21:50
      grass lands take massive quantities of CO2 out of the atmosphere in dump it into the soil. Much more than forests. We need to increase the worlds grass lands. Big desserts can be reclaimed in the world.
    • SS
      Sam S.
      24 December 2019 @ 16:58
      Sid you are right! Check out Wild Idea Buffalo----it's amazing and super healthy. Rebuilding grasslands while everyone wins! All the best!
  • SL
    Scott L.
    22 December 2019 @ 18:45
    This was great! Learned a lot, thanks Rob!
  • SM
    Stephane M.
    19 December 2019 @ 12:15
    Here is the queen of decarbonization without her script: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=sohBiFEHl7s&feature=emb_logo Hope you enjoy!!
    • WM
      Will M.
      19 December 2019 @ 15:51
      Yes Stephane........ She is being used by Greenpeace in a horrific way. I just hope she can survive these years.
  • PG
    Philippe G.
    17 December 2019 @ 15:42
    Glad to see Rob West back. Learned quite a bit in just over 30 mins! Surprised to hear the positive comments around Permian shale efficiency...what about the decline rates and capital being squeezed...doubt lenders will be more generous in the near-term...
    • WM
      Will M.
      19 December 2019 @ 15:50
      Precisely Phillipe! "Shale oil is not all its fracked up to be"
  • EJ
    Edward J.
    12 December 2019 @ 16:40
    I find it frankly sad that so many folk seem unable to accept that Rob is just giving his perspective on how our current energy system could decarbonise. You may not believe that this has to happen but surely RV is all about raising awareness of how markets may evolve and develop. I don't have strong views on the climate debate but the current political rhetoric would suggest to me that to dismiss this interview and its content is short sighted. Bravo RV.
    • WM
      Will M.
      19 December 2019 @ 15:48
      Great comment Edward, I don't fully agree with everything Rob says but he is enthusiastic and pretty well informed and I personally, even as an oil industry professional, found his enthusiasm infectious. Great session.
  • AB
    Anne-Marie B.
    18 December 2019 @ 18:59
    I so enjoy listening to this young man. He is so enthusiastic about his work. Always a pleasure to hear him
  • JB
    Jon B.
    17 December 2019 @ 21:27
    Great analysis. Extremely insightful. very balanced IMHO. In theory (disclaimer I drive a diesel) I've moved from renewables only to oil still needs to be part of the mix - I get it because of the energy density. I suppose if we can sequester CO2 out as much as we put in from low carbon oil then pump it into the permean we have a closed loop recycled energy chain.
  • BK
    Brian K.
    17 December 2019 @ 14:04
    Rob - really enjoyed that. Appreciate all the insights and balanced perspective. Would be curious to see a deep dive on some of the key technologies if you ever do a follow-up episode. Particularly interested in plastic recycling, which you had on your commercialization chart. Thanks!
  • KJ
    Kelly J.
    10 December 2019 @ 17:21
    Part 2 - continuation of my comments below • It’s actually not possible to understand and objectively talk about the possibilities of what profit-focused oil companies and new venture funded companies can do to create new energy opportunities to solve the energy/climate crisis unless we 1) Observe the abject failure of self-interest guided capitalism to address the climate issue in the 40 years we’ve known about it - with Big Oil being among the first to be well-informed by their scientists and engineers. 2019 will have the largest global greenhouse emissions in history. The oil majors and Wall St. have made plenty of money, but haven’t even made a dent in addressing the issue in 40 years. And they won’t solve it by 2050 in 30 years because their real motivation structurally is and has always been just to get their cut of a highly leveraged economy as financed via central banks, not to really generate a solution. 2) Observe the great damage the oil companies have done politically to the dialogue by actively supporting climate denial, misleadingly encouraging uncertainty about climate change science to avoid political action hurting their fossil fuel business. The oil industry itself is structurally immoral and profits from its bad incentive structures. It’s one thing to fund low carbon oil solutions as Rob suggests, another to fund climate deniers running for Congress like Donald Trump and his climate denier party members. Trump is a shining icon for what oil interests do with their money, and the pernicious, self-interested, criminally liable structural fraud and duplicity of Big Oil since its scientists affirmed it in the early 1980’s. Here’s how a big oil funded US government justifies rolling back US vehicle emission standards – it says our grandchildren are all going to cook with climate change anyway, so might as well make money and drive big cars now: https://www.fastcompany.com/90243700/the-trump-admin-says-screw-it-the-world-will-burn-by-2100-no-matter-what 3) Observe the massive failure of new oil extraction methods to be profitable. Rob talks about trillion dollar markets and the vast productivity gains possible in fracking. I notice he didn’t mention that the uncontroversial bit of data (see multi-year Wall Street Journal articles) that the entire, remarkable US fracking boom since 2009 has been a massive, multi-hundred billion dollar money-loser virtually every year across almost all companies. As most of us know, investors are getting tired of getting skinned alive in fracking. • I’ve been following the ‘peak oil’ debate for 15 years now. I think the growing community of economists and oil geologists who analyze the global economy as a physical system that runs on energy rather than an accounting system that runs on imaginary money printed by central banks are seeing problems that are not seen by “we’ve always got money” investors and government. They believe we’re already seeing physics ‘energy returned on net energy invested’ issues that explain the money-losing decade we've just seen in US fracking – the kind of thing expected in a financialized economy as it approaches collapse. They believe we can run out of oil either by oil prices going off the low end as global consumers ‘can’t afford to pay’ the price of lifting oil out of the ground to fund every aspect of an unsustainable global consumer economy in a way that’s profitable for oil companies, thus resulting in depression, or off the high end as oil supply becomes scarce relative to demand, and then high prices further kill demand enough to destroy the broader consumer economy, also causing a depression. Art Berman, an oil geologist I’ve followed for years on fracking recently used US Energy Information Agency (EIA) reserves data to make the case that US fracking production – global oil’s only real growth area - will peak around 2025, with grim implications for the global economy, in this interview “Houston, We Have a Problem” – written transcript under the picture with the audio: https://www.peakprosperity.com/art-berman-houston-we-have-a-problem/ Anyway, lots to think about. I’m interested in hearing other, cheerier views if they are backed with solid current and historical information. Meanwhile, I believe the best approach for both climate and energy issues is to focus on personal and public policies and investment regimes that are designed to drastically cut energy use and be happy living with less rather than more - ie: prepare for impact for a combined failure of ecology and economy. It's more likely, and more likely to occur sooner, than most of us expect.
    • SM
      Stephane M.
      11 December 2019 @ 00:40
      All the past predictions by the climate alarmist "scientists" has been WRONG!! How can you be so sure of the weather on earth in 12 or 30 years?!?!? Martin Armstrong once said you need to follow the money to understand what is going on. I did that and guess what,.. the government is giving money (2 billion/year compare to 200 million before) to anyone who can "prove" that, we, the bad humans, are causing global warming (please raise taxes to save us!!). Have you ever heard of studies that says the opposite?? How come they never expose it?!?!? They replace religion with global warming and if you don't believe you're a sinner!!
    • JH
      Jason H.
      11 December 2019 @ 23:02
      Kelly, "the cult" is one of belief in this CO2 rubbish. Listen to the geologists, in the wider scheme of things we are in a warm part of a very cool period in earths history with a very LOW CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Too much lower and things stop growing (50%) while we can easily accommodate 6x more carbon with no catastrophe. CO2 is about politics not reality and you cultists are going to kill people over it before this stupidity is done.
    • KJ
      Kelly J.
      14 December 2019 @ 16:09
      Stephane and Jason - Of course, climate science denial is actually self-interested political propaganda, and doesn’t have anything to do with science. I’ve been following the scientific predictions for 30 years, and they haven’t been wrong. In fact, we’re increasingly finding they have been too conservative: danger is coming towards us faster than originally predicted. Watch the NASA video of shrinking arctic ice, all the available time lapses of melting glaciers and chunks of Antarctic ice shelves breaking off. It’s quite real, folks, and doesn’t care about your or my politics. As far as I’m aware, the deeply corrupt, fossil fuel lobby supported Republican party in the United States is the only political party in the entire world which as a group denies we face an urgent climate crisis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial Libertarians often like climate denial, too, because it matches their philosophy (which we’re in the process of seeing proved wrong in spades) that all problems can be solved by the self-interested free market and that any kind of large government or global cooperation between diverse peoples will constrain their freedom, etc. I understand the wariness and concern about that, which IMO is valid in some respects, but that doesn’t change the scientific findings, facts, news, NASA videos of shrinking arctic ice, of time-lapse melting glaciers, of drought suffering brush fire smoke-choked Sydney in recent days, the hurricane flooded subways of New York, the record hurricane flooding all of Houston with more water than any storm recorded, the hurricane that killed power in Puerto Rico for months, and on and on. If I were a member of the climate denier cult, I’d be particularly daunted by the fact that I couldn’t go to a single science department of any university in any country in the world and find not just a majority of scientists, but in the vast majority of cases, any scientist at all, who agrees with my view. But I know that some people really just prefer to read or listen to their particular group and not recognize that on this, the science is actually just an objective set of findings. People believed in a ‘flat earth’ when they didn’t have tools to see that it’s round. Now we do. We also have the ability to see that climate change is real, happening and dangerous for anyone who is interested in taking a look, talking to a wide range of scientists, seeing the videos and following the climate news online. As I’ve said, the major oil companies have been among the largest, wealthiest companies on the planet. The notion that there’s a climate crisis caused by fossil fuels is a major threat to their vital interests. If there were any truth to climate denial, you can be certain that they would be leading the charge to make that case publicly and powerfully. Instead, they completely acknowledge the climate threat publicly, although they work privately to fund denialist causes and candidates in their own destructive political self-interest.
    • SM
      Stephane M.
      14 December 2019 @ 17:39
      Kelly J--- Of course, climate "science" alarmist is actually self-interested political propaganda, and doesn’t have anything to do with real science. I’ve been following the scientific predictions for 31 years, and they have been wrong. In fact, we’re increasingly finding they have been too radical and no danger is coming towards us... Life is good, enjoy it!! Don't forget to study cycles...
    • JH
      Jason H.
      16 December 2019 @ 23:57
      Kelly J. "Green" socialism would kill us all in the end. The Librarians are correct, it is the only way to find the right balance, you are so far off base there is no starting point for you to get back to reality. The market will resolve these issues as it always has, government will make things worse as it always has. History will rhyme as is always has, while people like you will always want to control how others live! As they always have.
  • JG
    James G.
    12 December 2019 @ 23:59
    There are not enough reserves of fossil fuels to keep us going for decades and alternatives are only 1/10 the energy density of fossil fuels. Without nuclear you are talking pipe dreams.
    • WM
      Will M.
      13 December 2019 @ 17:33
      Which is why we need more nuclear and more money spent on battery technology breakthrough. Prosperity depends on cheap energy....
    • JH
      Jason H.
      16 December 2019 @ 23:49
      Absolutely!
  • DL
    Doug L.
    15 December 2019 @ 00:52
    Efficiently delivered and rented tools and efficient centralized laundry may not be as deflationary as it sounds because the mass tool and washer use will demand much higher quality high use devices.
  • M.
    Milton .. | Founder
    12 December 2019 @ 13:56
    Look folks, the moment you insult a person, I will delete your comment. If you have something to say, take a minute and give that thought a mature form. Then take 5 minutes and write a couple of paragraphs where you elaborate. It can be witty, it can be sarcastic or ironic, it can positive, negative or neutral. When you insult the guest or someone in the community, suddenly we don't care what you have to say and I'll delete your comment. Also, you might see this comment on future videos as I'll copy it from time to time. M
    • CW
      CC W.
      12 December 2019 @ 16:29
      I think this can be a slippery slope trying to determine what constitutes an insult. I think the voting system does a good job let the reader rate the appropriateness of each comment. I can safely assume most if not all registered users of RV are well over 18 years old.
    • CW
      CC W.
      12 December 2019 @ 16:30
      Such people can make the proper judgment on whats a good comment or not.
    • M.
      Milton .. | Founder
      12 December 2019 @ 18:08
      It very much is a slippery slope. Up until this year I did very little moderation. Even now I’m being real because I know people sometimes have strong beliefs. Only thing that I want is we express everything in a mature way. Before commenting (pretty much everytime we communicate), ask yourself if what I’m about to write helps the discussion or if I’m being rude to my colleagues or guest. We aim to be like Switzerland 🇨🇭 here. Neutral because we know how bad it can get when we pick sides.
    • WM
      Will M.
      13 December 2019 @ 17:02
      Absolutely support Milton in this regard. I am sick and tire of a very few anonymous contributors commenting on female appearance or taking a nasty tone with someone they disagree with. Arguments against their views and opinions are fine, state you just do agree by all means, but get over this snide insulting or sexist comments. The very few spoil it for the 99%.
    • bm
      brian m.
      14 December 2019 @ 22:36
      I prefer to be insulted rather than know that comments are being removed.
  • VS
    Victor S. | Contributor
    10 December 2019 @ 17:35
    Mr west is a very bright man ... impressive indeed. Except he doesn’t understand climate change promotion has nothing to do with carbon increase ,but the ending capitalism. We can do all he suggests and china will laugh at it. Realize that carbon =CO 2 is 0.038% of the atmosphere ...300 years ago it 0.028%. Does anyone reading this understand that this is virtually a trace amount. Methane is 0.00018% so we shouldn’t eat meat? This is to end capitalism and enslave the world thru taxing the middle class., i enjoyed his knowledge However!
    • KJ
      Kelly J.
      10 December 2019 @ 19:27
      Your 'stats' are absurd, Victor - based on what you'd like to believe and the supposedly self-evident 3 second appraisal that small percentages of greenhouse gases aren't important, counter to what world science has been telling us for decades. I suppose a mere 3-4 degrees global temperature rise is no problem, too, right? Your notion that your 'trace amounts' argument holds any meaning is consistent with your suggestion that decades of massively agreed upon peer reviewed science is some kind of 'promotion' by leftists plotting to end capitalism. Such is the kind of delusional thinking the fossil fuel lobby helped foster with its billions in counter-science PR over the decades. This level of climate-denying cultism only exists in size in the US, to the detriment of the world, thanks to its support by US Big Oil. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMd6hE6Rr6M
    • HC
      Hahns C.
      10 December 2019 @ 22:03
      To Kelly J's comments - There is about $1.0B per day public and private money is being spent on the ideation of Climate Change today. With NO effect! The notion that one component CO2 (or carbon for that matter) is controlling factor to climatological science is hubris. The idea that man can dial back the earth’s temperature like the volume control on stereo speaker using carbon as the controls is in itself an incredibly ridiculous, absurd, and preposterous notion. The ONLY reason climate science is in the political discussion is that scientist that have valueless degrees must be funded by the socialist state in order to feed a family. The difference between a PhD and large Cheese Pizza is a Large Cheese Pizza will feed a family. The Central Planning Socialist want to tax and control the economics of the world. They can’t use market forces to achieve their desired results – so that have to use government to force everyone to their will. This is why the people must have the monopoly on violence over government through the Second Amendment. I don’t want to live in your dystopian world where economic prosperity is limited to those that are under the umbrella of government. Go the Russia or China and make your case there.
    • KJ
      Kelly J.
      10 December 2019 @ 22:35
      Hahns, you're a member of a climate denial cult that mistakenly believes that the laws of physics and climate effects give a crap about your or my political philosophies. They don't. I have no idea what 'spending $1 billion on climate change ideation means." However, you seem to believe this is a free market economy 'controlled by market forces'. That implies you believe this global economy could survive a single day if it weren't being propped up with billions of 'capital' printed from thin air by the Fed and other central banks, now on a daily as well as an annual basis. It's not. Capitalism is failing, dude. We have over $15 trillion in negative rates globally, about 1/3 of all investment grade bonds predicting future contraction. Time to wake up. As I posted elsewhere in this thread, I don't believe that environmentalists and socialists have an economic or climate solution either, but at least they have the good sense to believe world science and understand the problem unlike all those who've been bamboozled and are posting here.
    • SM
      Stephane M.
      10 December 2019 @ 23:22
      Amen Kelly J. I guess on your earth, everything is constant exept carbon! Go outside and feel the power Mother Nature's sun!! Everything goes in cycles... Once upon a time, New-York was under 2km of ice. I guess there was a lot of cars at that time ;-)
    • JL
      James L.
      11 December 2019 @ 22:18
      Exactly Victor. Kelly, you are completely delusional..sorry that you got fed the wrong info by these fraudsters in suits and their little girl puppet. You'll wake up to reality one day.
    • WM
      Will M.
      13 December 2019 @ 17:21
      Yes Victor I am almost 100% in agreement with you. I still enjoyed Mr Wests presentation though as I am open to discussion and can still enjoy other perspectives. I too have read a lot of comments about global scientists agreeing this or that, but they need funding and the funders most likely have other motives. I think its terrible the way Greenpeace are using Greta Thunberg (who has other personal challenges) but I do agree there is a strong driver to end capitalism and once again impose a doctrine to try to "make every one equal". I do not "hate" the CO2 advocates, many are very very smart, I just think the planet will do as it pleases and when it decides to show its power...... humans will experience disruption like never before. I believe we are cooling down and that the impending 21st century sunspot minimum will soon be seen for what it is, a force of nature every bit as powerful as a 9.0 quake of the San Andreas fault.
    • KJ
      Kelly J.
      14 December 2019 @ 16:06
      Of course, climate science denial is actually self-interested political propaganda, and doesn’t have anything to do with science. I’ve been following the scientific predictions for 30 years, and they haven’t been wrong. In fact, we’re increasingly finding they have been too conservative: danger is coming towards us faster than originally predicted. Watch the NASA video of shrinking arctic ice, all the available time lapses of melting glaciers and chunks of Antarctic ice shelves breaking off. It’s quite real, folks, and doesn’t care about your or my politics. As far as I’m aware, the deeply corrupt, fossil fuel lobby supported Republican party in the United States is the only political party in the entire world which as a group denies we face an urgent climate crisis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial Libertarians often like climate denial, too, because it matches their philosophy (which we’re in the process of seeing proved wrong in spades) that all problems can be solved by the self-interested free market and that any kind of large government or global cooperation between diverse peoples will constrain their freedom, etc. I understand the wariness and concern about that, which IMO is valid in some respects, but that doesn’t change the scientific findings, facts, news, NASA videos of shrinking arctic ice, of time-lapse melting glaciers, of drought suffering brush fire smoke-choked Sydney in recent days, the hurricane flooded subways of New York, the record hurricane flooding all of Houston with more water than any storm recorded, the hurricane that killed power in Puerto Rico for months, and on and on. If I were a member of the climate denier cult, I’d be particularly daunted by the fact that I couldn’t go to a single science department of any university in any country in the world and find not just a majority of scientists, but in the vast majority of cases, any scientist at all, who agrees with my view. But I know that some people really just prefer to read or listen to their particular group and not recognize that on this, the science is actually just an objective set of findings. People believed in a ‘flat earth’ when they didn’t have tools to see that it’s round. Now we do. We also have the ability to see that climate change is real, happening and dangerous for anyone who is interested in taking a look, talking to a wide range of scientists, seeing the videos and following the climate news online. As I’ve said, the major oil companies have been among the largest, wealthiest companies on the planet. The notion that there’s a climate crisis caused by fossil fuels is a major threat to their vital interests. If there were any truth to climate denial, you can be certain that they would be leading the charge to powerfully make that case publicly and powerfully. Instead, they completely acknowledge the climate threat publicly, although they work privately to fund denialist causes and candidates in their own destructive political self-interest.
  • JM
    Jim M.
    13 December 2019 @ 19:19
    The industry will continue to struggle profit-wise. It's all about break even levels. Compared to most offshore or conventional drilling, shale oil production remains a service-heavy industry. It's these service costs (and payroll costs) that are the issue. They seem to be falling and rising in line with the movement of oil prices. The strong inference is that when oil prices rise again (now?), so would the costs to shale producers.
  • CW
    CC W.
    12 December 2019 @ 07:24
    I thought the permian drilling are running out of oil? Can someone explain why he mentioned this year was a dip?
    • KJ
      Kelly J.
      12 December 2019 @ 18:41
      Hi KW, of course, we could say in the largest sense, all active oil fields are running out of oil ;-) - just a matter of when. But if I understand your question, though, what Rob said was: "Particularly in the Permian Basin, one of the most exciting areas we've just been through 350 technical papers in the shale industry from the summer of 2019. On what we're seeing, shale productivity continues improving at a phenomenal pace. There has been a slowdown in what's being announced in quarterly earnings by companies, but this is a blip." This is classic shale investor promo, IMO, whether from Rob or anyone else - 'yeah, we're losing money, but that's all just about to change'. This kind of talk has literally gone on for a decade now. Look at the consistent, money-losing history of US shale extraction (google "wall street journal shale losing money" to see recent crop, like "Oil Is Above $70, but Frackers Still Struggle to Make Money", "Frackers Face Harsh Reality as Wall Street Backs Away", "Oil and Gas Bankruptcies Grow as Investors Lose Appetite for Shale" - but it goes back years and years). That shale has been a perpetual, nearly universal money-loser for the companies & investors involved, is no secret and not controversial. I've followed Art Berman, an oil geologist who tracks all the Energy Information Agency and other data on drilling, reserves, etc. very independently and very carefully. He says Permian probably has another 5 years or so of increasing production, but at a rate of increase that's less than what's forecast. He then believes it will likely top, and with that, global oil production will likely flatten and decline, causing major economic issues. Here's a link to a long interview with him, which includes a lot of current and historical charts, and shows how he believes oil companies should be traded based on oil price levels and moves, not company profitability (since the shale sector isn't really profitable, and probably won't ever be): Houston, We Have a Problem https://www.peakprosperity.com/art-berman-houston-we-have-a-problem/
    • ST
      Steven T.
      12 December 2019 @ 19:25
      imo, the permian is the most attractive major oil field in the world right now — and this video simply reinforced the fact that it could possibly stand as *the* marginal grower of oil production for all of opec (because yes, many other major fields will be hitting peak production sooner rather than later). see mark gordon's research, goehring rozencwajg. imagine being the grower — while everyone is cutting production — in an (short) supply shocked oil bull market. early days though, we'll see.
    • WM
      Will M.
      13 December 2019 @ 17:32
      Folks I work in the oil business and for a company that has significant holding in the Permian. The Permian has great potential to expand and keep growing for many years. It will build product steadily as they continue to drill Tier 1 wells (to put simply these are the best producers in the production zones). The issue with shale is that the other areas that have captured so much attention (and capital) Eagle Ford, Bakken etc are running out of Tier 1 wells and drilling up Tier 2 wells which are much less productive and require higher oil prices to sustain. Shale oil is not going away, but growth in the older areas will stop and start declining very soon, especially if the oil price falls below $50. So while I disagree with most of Kelly J's comments relating to climate change she is correct on this one.
  • KJ
    Kelly J.
    10 December 2019 @ 17:15
    I moved to focus on the investment world after 2000, first as a broker at Morgan Stanley, then as an RIA for over a decade now, and as a climate activist on the side. In recent years, I’ve spent a lot of time as an organizer for actions for our local 350.org affiliated group. Some of my focus has been in on work on our Divestment/Investment committee, actively advocating for the fossil fuel divestment campaign Rob West is arguing is actually having a negative impact, (I disagree), and advocating for new sustainable, energy-conserving and carbon sequestering technologies - an area where Rob West and I may find many more areas of agreement. In the investment/environmental world and on climate/energy issues I don’t follow a closed, group-think philosophy. Rather, I formulate my own opinions and consider myself open-minded to reality-based data and possibilities and much less interested in BS in the form of wistful thinking - highly improbable projections - whether they come from the environmental community or from the business & investment community. In the last year or two, my view on these issues has shifted significantly based on my long term self-education across of a wide range of views: • I now believe that where we’re heading on energy and climate is likely nowhere good – toward major disruption –counter to the desperate need in the US financial sector for a perpetual stream of cheery Fed-funded ‘trillion dollar opportunity’ solutions of the type Rob makes a living promoting, (though I don’t doubt he may sincerely predict and expect good outcomes given the right investments). I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect we are going to see a solution that avoids major disruption to the economy & global ecology. Rather, I think there’s a high probability that we’ll see a catastrophic failure of initiatives in the energy/climate area to maintain our current, growth-based consumer economy and a non-disrupted climate, whether the initiatives to counter that failure come from the environmental/green side (eg Green New Deal rapid conversion to renewables) or the business/venture side (amazing new savior technologies) such as Rob is proposing. On the plus side, the sooner our global consumer economy is disrupted, the better it will be for reducing greenhouse emissions and mitigating the eventual disruption that comes from climate change. As you may know, we’re now experiencing ‘a great die off’ - massive species extinction – and major resource depletions in fresh water, fisheries, and other key areas - signs of the approaching scale-back and possible collapse. • Unlike many in the environmental and divestment movement, I’ve come to agree with the crucial point Rob makes, that, given our current economy + its growth requirements, renewable energy substitutes for fossil fuels can’t be scaled up rapidly enough to avoid either climate disruption or a major global economic disruption. Fossil fuels are completely embedded in the global consumer economy we inherited from the 20th century. Renewables likely can’t even come close to eliminating 55% of green house gas emissions by 2030, the updated target specified to avoid major climate disruption in the latest UN report a couple of weeks back, and neither can Rob’s technologies. Ecological biologist/Economist Bill Rees is one of a growing community of scientists and economists who make this argument, in this article “Don’t Call Me a Pessimist on Climate Change – I’m a Realist”: https://www.postcarbon.org/dont-call-me-a-pessimist-on-climate-change-i-am-a-realist/ • There may be a number of good and important ideas that Rob mentions that may be able to help mitigate the increasingly disruptive period we’re very likely heading into: for example, the ‘sharing economy’ he mentions has the potential to greatly reduce the huge amounts of energy and resources wasted in the current consumer economy by producing millions of items for people individually that they rarely use and could be much more efficiently shared. Also, obviously, to the extent that low carbon oil can be efficiently produced in quantity and carbon sequestration can be integrated into all phases of the economy, and other solutions he mentions, climate disruption can be mitigated.
    • HC
      Hahns C.
      10 December 2019 @ 22:06
      To Kelly J's comments - There is about $1.0B per day public and private money being spent on the ideation of Climate Change today. With NO effect! The notion that one component CO2 (or carbon for that matter) is controlling factor to climatological science is hubris. The idea that man can dial back the earth’s temperature like the volume control on stereo speaker using carbon as the controls is in itself an incredibly ridiculous, absurd, and preposterous notion. The ONLY reason climate science is in the political discussion is that scientist that have valueless degrees must be funded by the socialist state in order to feed a family. The difference between a PhD and large Cheese Pizza is a Large Cheese Pizza will feed a family. The Central Planning Socialist want to tax and control the economics of the world. They can’t use market forces to achieve their desired results – so that have to use government to force everyone to their will. This is why the people must have the monopoly on violence over government through the Second Amendment. I don’t want to live in your dystopian world where economic prosperity is limited to those that are under the umbrella of government. Go the Russia or China and make your case there.
    • KJ
      Kelly J.
      10 December 2019 @ 22:38
      Hahns, you're a member of a climate denial cult that mistakenly believes that the laws of physics and climate effects give a crap about your or my political philosophies. They don't. I have no idea what 'spending $1 billion on climate change ideation means." However, you seem to believe this is a free market economy 'controlled by market forces'. That implies you believe this global economy could survive a single day if it weren't being propped up with billions of 'capital' printed from thin air by the Fed and other central banks, now on a daily as well as an annual basis. It's not. Capitalism is failing, dude. We have over $15 trillion in negative rates globally, about 1/3 of all investment grade bonds predicting future contraction. Time to wake up. As I posted elsewhere in this thread, I don't believe that environmentalists and socialists have an economic or climate solution either, but at least they have the good sense to believe world science and understand the problem unlike all those who've been bamboozled and are posting here.
    • HC
      Hahns C.
      11 December 2019 @ 01:26
      Kelly - Please move out of this country and take your ideas to a place that will appreciate your thinking.
    • KJ
      Kelly J.
      11 December 2019 @ 08:37
      Hahns, that laughable phrase is the ancient, oft repeated, last resort of the intolerant. Welcome to the United States. We have what's called freedom of thought and tolerance for freedom of expression here - didn't you get the memo? Would you prefer to live somewhere that doesn’t permit freedom of expression - or where everyone agrees with you? It kind of sounds like it. I know I sure wouldn't. I like different points of view. Many people like the way I think and agree with me on many issues. Of course, some don't, like yourself. And sometimes that can be even more interesting – when we can talk about our differences and occasionally each learn something new. Anyway, the vast majority of people in the world and the US actually believe in science, believe in climate science and in the value of education, unlike the views you've expressed, and so I have no problem feeling quite comfortable right here. How about you? When I was a kid decades ago, it was only old people back then who were either xenophobes, racists or very inflexible old coots who’d somehow came to think that their particular very narrow political, religious or economic beliefs are the only "right" ones - the only "American" beliefs - that said things like 'Why don't you move to another country if that’s what you think?" Back then, that was exactly the same sign of intolerance of and an inability to consider other people's points of view that it is now. Some things never change.
    • SM
      Stephane M.
      12 December 2019 @ 09:32
      To Kelly: If your main argument is that the vast majority of the world believe in man made global warming... once upon a time the crowd believed the earth to be FLAT!!! The crowd thinking is always wrong ;-)
    • WM
      Will M.
      13 December 2019 @ 17:13
      Sorry Kelly J, we are about to start significant cooling, not warming. I am with Marty Armstrong on this. Climate change has been hijacked by governments seeking new ways to tax. Pollution and natural habit destruction are the real enemies. However, the preponderance of DEBT is what is actually going to lay us low. Oh and by the way, sea levels have been slowly rising steadily for millennia...... so a good freeze up, currently under way in Antartica, is what those coastal communities need. Having said all that, I appreciate your passion.
  • FG
    Fred G.
    9 December 2019 @ 11:45
    Ok so his tie is green which I guess is a giveaway really. Again another demonizer of Carbon yet if you notice a nuance in the language when its bad its CARBON yet when its things we might like he refers to CO2. The interview was littered with statements about how we MUST decarbonize. I have read so many reports by people who were involved in early climate studies and now say its all a load of crap makes me at the very least suspicious; that and the fact that everybody seems to believe that carbon is bad and evil and the world is about to end makes me want to take the other side of that trade. If we talk about air quality I agree this is a big issue but I think there is a building amount of evidence to suggest that a lot of climate activists have chosen data to suit their hypothesis and in fact the earth just cools and warms and its a fact of life. The jury is still out but I think a more balanced view would be appropriate. Look there are some interesting points raised but there seems to be a lot of Psuedo-science claims made - Rob certainly seems to have calculated many things with no real backup to claims made. He mentions that a 747 (a 1960s AC) would fall out of the sky after 90 miles with electrical power. yes possibly true with current battery technology - currently lithium ion battery has an energy density of about 0.5MJ/KG, gasoline is 44MJ/KG and Uranium is 700,000MJ/KG so its not all relative. Although I do not believe currently that we will see electrical propulsion systems for commercial aircraft anytime soon I do accept the point there are many ways to fuel an aircraft - gas-to-liquids, biofuels, blends and so on plus don’t ignore the huge energy efficiency gains made by the manufacturers. Claiming that a 10t delivery truck is used to deliver a 2.5kg parcel is not a fair representation of how the delivery providers actually work. A 10T truck (and in fact about 5t but who’s counting here) is probably used to deliver several tonnes of packages and in a reasonably efficient route. More often the engine is off than on. Most delivery depots are located well out of cities and would thus require drones flying back and forth all day long. how fast can a drone fly, how much weight can it carry, how much noise does it make, what are the environmental impacts of producing and recycling the drone and the batteries, how long do they last, can a drone put the parcel under my neighbors work bench, Is it really more efficient to have everybody's laundry collected, is there enough space to accommodate all these drones collecting and delivering all these things - unless we want to live in a buzzzzzzzz world I would remain dubious There seem to be a lot of conviction and dogma that we MUST decarbonize and there is not other option. Would have preferred a bit more balance. And how someone can fully analyze 500 new energy technologies in 200 working days of the year seems a bit whimsical
    • CJ
      Charles J.
      9 December 2019 @ 16:38
      I totally understand what you're saying and I'd count myself as a skeptic as well, but I also appreciate him bringing a more measured approach to the subject than the more dogmatic climate change people. If we're going to have the discussion and its pretty clear what side of the debate Rob's on, its important that we at least deal in the world of what's possible rather than the fantasy land that some espouse.
    • JH
      Jason H.
      9 December 2019 @ 23:35
      The market will "decarbonize" when it makes sense. It is coming and the next transition, if it matches the historical pattern, will have to offer 10x oil's potential @ a lower price. No small feat and Nuclear looks like the only viable contender in the long run. Carbon is here for a while and it it is forced out too soon with politics people will die and we will fight.
    • WM
      Will M.
      13 December 2019 @ 16:39
      Sorry Fred, we will always move toward the most efficient means of generating energy. Thats nuclear but it has very high front and back end costs. Hydrocarbon is the most efficient way to generate energy for transportation and power generation. Replacing that infrastructure will cost trillions and just who do you think will fund that. The main problem in this world is not the natural CO2 product but the pointing and pollution by chemicals and plastics. Lets put money into reversing pollution and improving the environment including mass tree planting. Lets focus on the next breakthrough in battery technology which will further enhance the future of solar and wind dramatically. We need the storage capacity to really bring these technologies to bear and lithium batteries is NOT it.
  • TT
    Tokyo T.
    11 December 2019 @ 03:20
    Hilarious talk by the dude in a green tie. I bet Rob drives a car gas-powered car or coal-powered EV, lives in a big house or apartment that's heated and cooled by coal, flies all over the world in a plane, eats beef tacos for lunch, and drinks coffee in a single-use disposable cup. He then comes on RV says we have to decarbonize to save the world.
    • TT
      Tokyo T.
      11 December 2019 @ 21:51
      Very sensitive, Luca. Did I trigger you? You have made your own judgments based on assumptions. Your response makes you a hypocrite. Why should every comment be "wow, smart guy." Seeing thought the bullshit is part of being a successful investor. Good luck to you, but please take a big deep breath. Everything is OK.
    • RP
      Raoul P. | Founder
      12 December 2019 @ 12:47
      We do not accept personal attacks of Real Vision. This is a forum for intelligent discussion
    • CR
      Corey R.
      12 December 2019 @ 19:07
      I did not see where he said we need to save the world from carbon. Perhaps he did, I dont know. But even if he did, that is irrelevant to the main point of the video, which is to inform the viewer on new technologies that lower carbon output. This information is valuable, not because I think the world is in a carbon death spiral, but because I can see there is a global trend, even in some developing companies, to reduce carbon emissions and I would like to profit from this trend. It doesnt matter if global warming is real or BS, these low carbon technologies will be adopted because that is the direction not just governments but also consumers are going. Would you buy tobacco companies even if you are a non-smoker? I would, and I dont see how investing in carbon-reducing tech, even if you dont believe in global warming, is any different
  • Nv
    Nick v.
    12 December 2019 @ 16:18
    I love hearing from people with deep industry knowledge. Great job RV & Rob
  • AM
    Alastair M.
    12 December 2019 @ 13:19
    very instructive. rare to get genuine balance in this debate
  • DB
    David B.
    12 December 2019 @ 12:35
    I don't belong to the Church of Climatology anymore. You can keep your cultist belief to yourself.
  • RY
    Roy Y.
    12 December 2019 @ 11:16
    Super engaging - great interview!
  • JL
    Jinny L.
    12 December 2019 @ 01:13
    i say do what politicians do and kick the can down the road. let our kids and future generations figure it out like we had to from our forefathers!
  • JC
    JAMES C.
    11 December 2019 @ 23:26
    It seems the underlying assumption that makes/breaks the thesis it that we MUST decarbonize, presumably for our own good... to save the world. If this assumption is not true, then this seems another misallocation of capital and/or worse. There is not much here that is not being done now.... but more "grants" and "free $$" is needed... ???
  • SM
    Stephane M.
    9 December 2019 @ 18:57
    How can we pretend that carbon is causing global warming?!?!? I guess that the temperature on earth was always stable before the ICE was invented!! Come on people, take a look at the history (not just 30 years) of our earth climate and you will discover that climate has always changed. In the 30's the earth was getting so hot, then in the 70's it was global cooling!! Don't you see a pattern?!?!? Take 12 minutes of your time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=8455KEDitpU&feature=emb_logo By the way, I'm against pollution and live a simple life on my bike ;-) But my "green" friends are always in their cars, boats, motorcycle, planes, etc. When you see that they are using a child to push their carbon tax on everybody, you know they are desperate... I DARE YOU ;-)
    • HC
      Hahns C.
      9 December 2019 @ 20:35
      Perfect! Thank you. Well said. Hyperbolic notions of Climate Change are a political cult - based upon cherry picked data, faked subject matter, and fraudulent propositions.
    • JH
      Jason H.
      9 December 2019 @ 23:25
      It's the most amazing brain washing job ever achieved. They have people panicked about CO2 when it is actually beneficial and only slightly worried about the plastic island that we could actually clean up!
    • TR
      Travis R.
      10 December 2019 @ 00:04
      Thank you Jason. Plastic in the oceans is a much larger problem. Thankfully great progress is being made on this front via The Ocean Cleanup.
    • BF
      Bruce F.
      10 December 2019 @ 08:45
      with the change in sun spot activity global cooling has started
    • TJ
      Terry J.
      10 December 2019 @ 17:42
      Well said Stephane, and all who replied to your comments. Dr Mark Sircus has some excellent factual arguments as to why it's global cooling we should be concerned about because of the Sun's distance from the Earth and the actions of its flares, sunspots etc. CO2 is good and essential for life on Earth. Too many of us have been brainwashed by politicians looking for any excuse to tax us more and make money out of their climate change lies. Btw, I totally agree with the elimination of plastic which is a much bigger threat to life on Earth. https://coldclimatechange.com
    • RW
      Rod W.
      10 December 2019 @ 19:25
      And for a different viewpoint watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjPkclkZh6o Until very recently I was a climate change skeptic, but very annoyingly I think man made climate change is happening.
    • KJ
      Kelly J.
      10 December 2019 @ 20:40
      Stephanie, Hahns, Jason, Travis, Bruce, and Terry - We have peer-reviewed world science - what a concept! Check it out! It helped bring us all modern technology and civilization. Just because you don't like its conclusions after 40 years of climate science and is now speaking with a massive consensus, doesn't mean its findings aren't absolutely true. If you check their websites, you'll see even Exxon and the other oil majors who suffer from the fact acknowledge human & fossil fuel caused climate change is serious and real. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
    • HC
      Hahns C.
      10 December 2019 @ 22:26
      Kelly J's assertions of 40 years and convincing science has been debunked over and over and over again. That notion is a typical "we know better" argument for the Greenies. Stop making yourself look stupid by implying you are smarter than the rest of the planet.
    • JH
      Janet H.
      10 December 2019 @ 23:07
      I agree!!!
    • JH
      Jason H.
      11 December 2019 @ 23:26
      Kelly J. Peer reviewed has become a meaningless joke, look into the way it actually works in the real world. Nothing about the CO2 joke makes sense in the wider scheme of things, however short term it is a great way to get funded! LOL... follow the money, best science money can buy. These guys are tearing up scientific credibility and it will be to our detriment in the long run.
  • JH
    Jason H.
    9 December 2019 @ 23:27
    CO2 in the atmosphere at the current time is historically low, too much lower and life on earth isn't possible as nothing much would grow. Counter to the neo Marxist human hating green 'socialists' propaganda we need MORE CO2 in the atmosphere if the earth is to get GREENER. There are many other things we do that we can clean up and they are being passed over in favor of this politically driven BS. This guy is working from a flawed premise.
    • db
      don b.
      10 December 2019 @ 00:53
      Good point but Santa is going to put you on the naughty list.
    • JH
      Jason H.
      10 December 2019 @ 02:00
      Santa too? Kinda looks like Marx... hmmmmmmm.
    • HC
      Hahns C.
      10 December 2019 @ 22:09
      The truth is the earth lies on the freezing cold side of the Goldilocks band in our solar system. Without CO2 the earth would be a frozen ball of water ice. (Goldilocks band is the distance from the sun - not hot and not cold)
    • AC
      Andrew C.
      11 December 2019 @ 04:38
      Actually with more CO2 in the atmosphere, plants are growing faster. This may sound better but in fact they are less nutritious as they have less time to accumulate minerals and to build the proteins, carbohydrates and another nutrients humans obtain when they eat them. I am reminded of Taleb's philosophy; don't stuff around with complex systems that have evolved over millennia. A small change can have huge unintended and unpredictable consequences.
    • JH
      Jason H.
      11 December 2019 @ 23:20
      We are a part of the complex system, have been for quite a while now.
  • TH
    Tom H.
    11 December 2019 @ 11:32
    Interesting he didn’t touch on Hydrogen gas as part of the future energy mix. Australian Govt has big plans to invest in the H2 supply chain
    • JL
      James L.
      11 December 2019 @ 22:34
      Australian govt would choose the most useless and least likely. They always do
    • JH
      Jason H.
      11 December 2019 @ 22:53
      Hydrogen is a battery... not a source.
  • GH
    Gary H.
    11 December 2019 @ 14:20
    This is excellent. Bought a big position in XOP as what he discussed is the reality that the mix will take a long time to change and lack of investment will lead to higher prices with current lack of investment.
  • NR
    Nelson R.
    11 December 2019 @ 00:47
    Rob is brilliant, keep bringing him on.
  • HC
    Hahns C.
    10 December 2019 @ 22:18
    I will say that I like Rob West's ideas of using CO2 more effectively as a product producer are fantastic. Further I like the notions of using CO2 in fracking. Just wonder how the drillers will separate the volatile Natural Gas from the CO2 unless they are both in liquid form. Also, I wish that more testing and experimentation is done to perfect cryogenic transportation of Natural Gas. Frozen solid LNG is not a dangerous explosive hazard and therefore could be transported in box contain formats.
  • cd
    chris d.
    10 December 2019 @ 19:14
    lots of really interesting data and ideas. just wish he hadn't been as dismissive of nuclear. 100 new plants being built and planned, with a further 300 in early planning. when you factor into sun and wind renewables, the cost and impact of getting rid of obsolete or decayed solar panels and wind turbines nuclear looks highly competitive from a clean energy perspective. so I'd have liked him to have looked at that as one of the alternatives
  • PM
    Philip M.
    10 December 2019 @ 16:38
    I have learnt loads. We should be able to put a link on this to Facebook so you don't need to sign up. This is so important when our Politicians have just got totally the wrong end of the stick. This is soooo interesting.. Very engaging Rob ! Thanks Real Vision.... Phil
  • JK
    Josh K.
    10 December 2019 @ 15:59
    Wow lot of deep out of the money nut jobs lurking today
  • PP
    Peter P.
    10 December 2019 @ 14:28
    This was outstanding, one of the most important videos I’ve watched on your platform. I hope you will distribute it as part of the free videos, I consider it quite important that these ideas get more attention.
  • PJ
    Peter J.
    10 December 2019 @ 10:15
    The climate change / deny debate more polarised and politicised than Brexit. Is it possible to have a objective discussion? Doesn’t look like it.
  • CN
    Charles N.
    10 December 2019 @ 04:42
    This was a fantastic interview whether you care about decarbonization of energy or not, simply to get to watch Rob's process of analyzing a market for opportunities others aren't seeing. Well done!
  • KA
    Kevin A.
    10 December 2019 @ 03:14
    This should be required viewing at Harvard and Yale.
  • SB
    Sam B.
    9 December 2019 @ 11:47
    No mention of nuclear?
    • KD
      Kaj D.
      9 December 2019 @ 12:36
      Pg 6 of transcript
    • CH
      Charles H.
      10 December 2019 @ 02:34
      Absolutely token mention of a key energy technology. It’s almost as though the analysis is ideologically driven...
  • CH
    Charles H.
    10 December 2019 @ 02:31
    Very interesting vision and technology review. Where is the price signal that will drive decarbonisation? “We’ve gotta do this” just won’t register with most market participants, but cost competitiveness will.
  • RH
    Robert H.
    10 December 2019 @ 01:49
    Interesting timing, I just completed an excellent analysis/article" Recession Ahead: An Overview of Our Predicament of Energy vs Recession" by Gail Tverberg at Our Finite World, similar topic however, Gail takes a slightly different approach. Might be worth the read, I download her .ppt to support the read, copious amounts of data to support her position.
  • db
    don b.
    10 December 2019 @ 01:10
    What is the whole climate change argument is BS? Which it is and is being driven by governments which should give us a clue that it's dirty.
  • TM
    Timothy M.
    9 December 2019 @ 21:52
    Amazing comment about fracking in the Permian may be the lowest CO2 in oil. Very insightful interview for a novice like me in the energy industry.
    • db
      don b.
      10 December 2019 @ 00:56
      The Permian is flaring more gas than the rest of the country. Wake me up when they are forced to obey the current flaring laws in TX. Buy oil.
  • RE
    Richard E. | Contributor
    9 December 2019 @ 16:12
    Rob is awesome. His opinion is so balanced and objective and he has tons of data to support it. Would love to see a debate between Rob and people on both sides (very green and climate deniers) whose views are more extreme
    • JH
      Jason H.
      9 December 2019 @ 23:30
      "Climate Deniers"... stop with the politically driven language and its horrible associations. Nobody is "climate denieing", jeeeeze Louise.
  • AV
    Anne V.
    9 December 2019 @ 23:19
    spare me co2 comments
  • AV
    Anne V.
    9 December 2019 @ 23:16
    your global emission is mainly made by big corp. carbonize is crap, a good way to make middle class , poor. decarbonize is he biggest bunch of rubbish i have ever heard. war is how the powers make money . do not except them to do anything else . your 747 ex is good but crap . after concorde , we have gone backwords.
  • AV
    Anne V.
    9 December 2019 @ 23:07
    the sun it is free . tech is killing people slowly .
  • JB
    Jack B.
    9 December 2019 @ 20:57
    thanks RV. Fantastic interview
  • BG
    Bernd G.
    9 December 2019 @ 20:10
    would Love to be able to Share it via yt
  • OT
    Omar T.
    9 December 2019 @ 15:14
    As a practical point, are we going to live in a honey bee like world with electric drones buzzing around all of the time taking a power drill from one person to the next and delivering groceries for people? Think about all of the inevitable problems of drones malfunctioning, hitting birds etc and crashing down on people. Also, the next hacker revolution where a person could hack all of the drones flying around in an area and force them to land... It is an interesting concept, but needs a lot of work.
    • SP
      Sat P.
      9 December 2019 @ 19:38
      If local councils didn't charge such high business rates, and if corporate taxes and social security payments were lower for businesses, more people would open retail shops and click & collect locations everywhere. Massive parts of the UK and other western countries have ghost towns which could be easily revived if taxes were slashed and more free market policies put into action
  • PD
    Pere D.
    9 December 2019 @ 15:32
    I fly 747 Freighters. When I fly over southern Iraq I marvel at how much natural gas is being flared. Unbelievable waste. That needs to be put into a pipeline and become LNG.
  • DD
    Dmitry D.
    9 December 2019 @ 15:25
    Great interview and insight. Just a shame that a serious (and productive) conversation of this level does not appear possible in the current political climate. Very little space left between "Greta evangelists" and equally fanatical "haters".
  • Av
    Arthur v.
    9 December 2019 @ 14:32
    Wow this interview opened my eyes on energy transition.
  • wj
    wiktor j.
    9 December 2019 @ 14:13
    Or we could just invest in nuclear and fusion. Fact you need 1 cup of radio active water to meet 1 persons needs for a life time. How many windmills will one person go through in a life time. How much CO2 is that? How much oil do you need to build the "new green energy"? Do these people do math or hopism? What is 350 time more land ground of green energy for 1 nuclear plant? Another problem with green energy with nature. You never see these pictures of all the birds killed of by the green energy. Yes if you build nuclear plants on tectonic plates you will get problems. Japan should have just put up green energy instead of nuclear plants.
  • PJ
    Peter J.
    9 December 2019 @ 10:04
    Welcome back Rob, what a cracking set of guests we have on this week!!
  • bm
    brian m.
    9 December 2019 @ 09:34
    Analysts like Rob really make me question the intentions of far left environmentalists...They look more red than green
  • HK
    H K.
    9 December 2019 @ 09:19
    Very interesting ideas brought up - not all immediately actionable - but good to know about
  • RT
    Ryan T.
    9 December 2019 @ 08:59
    Fantastic insights. 👏👏👏