Barrel Energy Inc (BRLL)

[Maarten]

Nice article. Summarizes what's been going on for decades.
I don't agree with everything this author writes and the scope of the article is very broad and most of all, it's the author's opinion. It is rather a moral tale of an oil- believer in an economic bolster, fodder for sociologists, philosophers, psychologists and macro-economists rather than for people who want to invest in clean energy solutions. The author shifts the actual debate (population growth, the quest for energy, global warming) somewhat by mentionning the printing money argument.

I'm a fan of facts. The author claims to be as well in his "Reality check".

My facts:

-we will very likely need more energy in the future (even if we consume less). Just look at the consuming expectations of the Indian and Chinese middle classes (they outnumber the population of, say, the US and Europe). Investing in new energy solutions (whether "green of not") is a must.
-Clean energy requires vasts amounts of energy and CO2 continues to be emitted.

My thoughts:

-the person who tries to convince people that CO2 is not the cause of global warming will have a very hard time (my thoughts on global warming below).
-robots will replace labor and robotization will be taxed.
-people don't care if a bread costs 100.000$ or 1$ when their standard of living remains the same.
-science is making progress, and a lot. Batteries will be able to be recycled and new, more profitable and environmentally friendly sources of energy will and should be discovered.

About the "Reality check".

1. true. Like oil refineries need to be renewed, alternative energy installations are not going to last forever.
2. A lot of company's are betting huge on battery storage systems. We will get there. Just look at the evolution that took place in a few years time.
3. Batteries as a toxic costly landfill. Battery recycling? I'm familiar with a company that goes for it
4. Hey, author, shall we give it a try? Great things never came from comfort zones.
5. Apparently this author has dug all over the world for energy sources. The article focuses only on clean energy. Why? the author makes the decision not to focus on the transition phase to other energy sources and the merging of fossil fuels and other, supposedly "greener", energy, nor on the will of entrepreneurs to tap new energy sources. Fossil fuels can also be made greener! Let's not neglect that development either.
6. What's the cost of Exxon Valdez, bp oil spill in the gulf of mexico, the tens of thousands of tons of oil in the oceans every year, diseases cause by CO2 emissions? Every energy source has its cost. Let's embrace scientific research on renewable energy sources and the efforts to make oil extraction and combustion more environmentally friendly.
7. What a negative statement. Now we end up again in the human brain and macroeconomics. More than 40 percent of Germany's electricity production is derived from solar panels and wind turbines. People CAN change their habits. People can live healthier by consuming less fat. People can consume less or more thoughtful.

Either way, let's keep the oil and invest in renewable energy now that we're going to need more energy and that's about the only thing the author and I agree on.

Where there's a will there's a way. Does the author have the will to embrace the - what he calls - "appealing fantasy" of renewable energy even if it might not be as green as we believe? I hope so.

I'm going to leave it at that.

My take on global warming.

Is global warming caused by humans, through their massive consumption of fossil fuels? Opinions differ. My opinion is not important but I will share it:
When you go back in time, you see that ice ages and warmer periods alternated, that petroglyphs were discovered in caves that are now 40 meters below sea level. That's something scientists are allowed to ponder. A nice article: (only abstract here): https://science.sciencemag.org/content/318/5849/435.abstract

In an interview in Science Daily in 2007 Lowel Stott (Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA) says: "I don't want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn't affect climate. It does, but the important point is that CO2 is not the beginning and end of climate change." I think Stott could be right with his believes. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and has an impact on the Earth's energy balance. But that does not mean that atmospheric CO2 is the "major trigger" for climate change. That issue is something scientists are allowed to ponder.

To me carbon dioxide is the result of global warming not the cause. That does not mean that the consumption of fossil fuels would not contribute to global warming.

Lastly, don't try to convince people that CO2 is not the cause of global warming. You will fail. And that precise conviction will drive an irreversible revolution to renewable energy and company's like BRLL that decide to build a li-ion battery manufactury in a nation that wants to be completely EV by 2030 (billions of subsidies for car buyers and entrepreneurs) and where Musk is building an electric car manufactury plant "close" to Roshan's headquarters.