RE:RE:Blind spots matt2018 wrote: Appreciate the post Obscure. Interesting comparison and I agree as improvements in the technology keeps advancing, EV's will play a role in the future mix.
Where we differ is on the timeframe and the pace of market dominance.
It could be a slow grind. Some will make it, many others will fail.
Also the infrastructure for all this also requires massive investment at a time when government balance sheets are stretched, credit tapped out, future budgets likely to be cut (just to avoid defaults).
To compare all this to a mature business like Suncor makes little sense.
Companies like SU are making money today, not hoping to make it someday if everything goes right.
With large capital costs behind them, the company is generating $billions in profit with a proven business model where strong demand for their product is still increasing annually.
Not saying that can't change. Energy companies may need to adapt and run their businesses like Opec does one day.
Sure the market is forward looking but look out below if these EV start-ups miss these lofty targets/expectations.
All depends on your investment horizon. I want the sure thing today.
my issue is, this is obscure1's 3rd long post in SU board conveying the same message hammering the same points on EV benefits: cheap night power rate x EV power usage = cheap fuel cost comparing to a gas guzzler truck, and on entended brake pads life. He has yet find faults in all my reply to his posts. At least i presented fresh counter points on each of my replies. Yes, he's fishing for critic to his EV view point. He doesn't posts his EV argument in CNQ or CVE board, only in SU board. If he's really trying to save us from SU's demise, why not try to save CNQ and CVE's investors too, they are just as big or bigger than SU market cap, therefore, even more oil investors.
FYI, be careful of someone's outlook of a new technology that they aren't trained in. They see EVs at elementary base level. There are at least 2 more dimension outlook to this new technology they never talk about. Obscure1 already admitted he view EV only on profitability angle, ignoring the ESG. Would you trust a thesis that was analysed base on 20-25% variables of a technology and claimed the EV science is settled?