+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 42
Latest: eranda
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 9801
Total Topics: 240
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi  (Read 8706 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9606
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #135 on: July 01, 2017, 03:07:39 pm »
Statoil to Develop Carbon Capture and Storage System Off Norway

June 30, 2017 by gCaptain

Agelbert NOTE: The above is a technofix Big Oil Scam. I will explain WHY after you have waded through the Big Oil Pie in the Sky   Happy Talk Propaganda article  below.

Norwegian oil and gas company Statoil has been assigned the task of developing a carbon storage facility offshore Norway, in what could be the world’s first storage site to receive carbon dioxide from several industrial sources.

The storage project is part of Norwegian government’s efforts to develop full-scale carbon capture and storage in Norway. The project was assigned by the Norwegian state-owned carbon capture technology firm Gassnova.  

According to Statoil, the system will capture CO2 from three onshore industrial facilities in Eastern Norway and transport CO2 by ship from the capture area to a receiving plant onshore located somewhere on the west coast of Norway. At the receiving plant, CO2 will the be pumped over from the ship to tanks onshore before being sent through pipelines on the seabed to several injection wells east of the Troll field on the Norwegian Outer Continental Shelf, Statoil said.

Several possible locations for the receiving plant will be evaluated and a final decision will be based on criteria such as safety, costs and expansion flexibility, Statoil added.

In addition, the storage solution to be evaluated    will have the potential to receive CO2 from both Norwegian and European emission sources, according to Statoil.
Statoil says that studies performed in 2016 show that it is technically feasible to realize a carbon capture and storage chain in Norway, and technologies for carbon capture and storage in geological formations are also well known and established.

Future carbon storage could also benefit the hydrogen market, as hydrogen produced from natural gas generates CO2 as a by-product.

“Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an important tool to reduce carbon emissions and to achieve the global climate targets as defined in the Paris Agreement,” says Irene Rummelhoff, Statoil’s executive vice president for New Energy Solutions. “The CCS project that has been assigned to us will require an entirely new collaboration model with carbon capture from several industrial sources, carbon transportation by ships, and carbon storage 1000-2000 meters below the seabed. In addition, this may be the start of the world’s first CCS network across national borders. Much work remains, but if we are successful, this may open new business opportunities both for Statoil, our collaboration partners and Norwegian industry.”   

The next phase of the project, to be performed by Statoil, will involve concept and pre-engineering studies in order to evaluate the possibilities in more detail and to get accurate cost estimates towards a possible investment decision, which could be made by the Norwegian Parliament in 2019.
“The next big tasks are developing technology, regulations and general commercial conditions that may stimulate an extensive roll-out of CCS,” says Rummelhoff.


FACT CHECK by Agelbert: Why is ALL the above an excellent example of irrational, suicidal, and cynical propaganda by Big Oil for the exclusive purpose of clinging to their profit over planet polluting 'business model'?

1. Well, to begin with, there is NO DEBATE about the deleterious effects on the biosphere of the 'business model' of the Fossil Fuel Industry (see below).

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is now around 410 Parts Per Million (PPM). That tiny amount in our atmosphere is already over 60 PPM above the limit (i.e. 350 PPM) to avoid massive extinctions, a huge rise in sea level, marine species killing acidification and routine 30 meter high wave tossed oceans. So what? Aren't they going to REDUCE the amount of CO2 out there? ???  NO, THEY ARE NOT!      See explanation below:

2. The most technically advanced method of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere is now used by the Military Submarine fleets throughout the world. The U.S. Navy has the absolute state of the art CO2 scrubbing technology. In fact, the PRIMARY reason U.S. subs need to surface is to get fresh air and purge the CO2.

Yes, they need to surface to get food and other supplies, but they CANNOT allow the  CO2 to get above 8 THOUSAND PPM (not 410 PPM) because the crew will suffer permanent cognitive and respiratory damage.  SO WHAT? Eight thousand PPM is a lot more than we have to 'worry' about in our atmosphere. A piddly 410 PPM is no concern of ours, right? WRONG!  See "1." above:

The point is that there is NO TECHNOLOGY in existence that can get the CO2 in the atmosphere BELOW 5 THOUSAND PPM. That is the best the U.S. Navy (and probably every other navy with submarines) can do.

But even that modern CO2 scrubbing technology is time limited. How come? Because, despite the scrubbing, the present technology cannot prevent the CO2 concentration from gradually rising until it approaches 8,000 PPM, thereby requiring the submarine to surface in order to avoid crew damage.

So, ANYONE claiming, as Statoil does in the above article, that "technologies for carbon capture and storage in geological formations are well known and established" is dissembling, to put it mildly. 

Yes, you CAN pump CO2 into geological formations. BUT, you can NEVER extract (i.e. capture) enough CO2 from our atmosphere to get anywhere NEAR less than 5000 PPM, never mind the 350 PPM that we MUST return to.

IOW, this is another SUBSIDIZED Big Oil move to get we-the-people to pay for a "carbon capture solution" that DOESN'T EVEN WORK, except as a clever, mendacious and cynical excuse to continue burning fossil fuels.

Notice, for example, that many of those geological formations they plan to pump liquified CO2 into just happen to be places where Big Oil is NOW extracting fossil fuels from. Isn't that amazingly convenient? The Polluter Trolls want to charge you for putting CO2 in their aptly named Troll field. These bastards have absolutely no shame. They pollute the planet and then they propose a pie in the sky geological formation carbon storage "solution" that we-the-people have to pay THEM for!

3. This "carbon capture NONsolution" subsidy is simply a way to avoid responsibility. The CAN store but they CANNOT, as of yet, CAPTURE the PROPORTION of atmospheric Carbon dioxide needed to mitigate Catastrophic climate change. This is the type of half truth double talk the fossil fuel industry crooks and liars are infamous for since they took lessons from the tobacco propagandists.

It is just another unethical slick propaganda move to try to rebrand Big Oil and Gas as the "problem solving savior" when they are the profit over people and planet problem cause AND perpetuator!

There is presently NO OTHER METHOD under present technology, besides CEASING to burn fossils, available to mitigate climate change Catastrophe during this sixth Mass Extinction that we have entered.

But, but couldn't we just hope for a technical miracle from the fossil fuel industry?  The Fossil fuelers have, for about 40 years now, written thousands and thousands of articles about how Renewable Energy was "pie in the energy sky" and "was not ready for prime time". They claimed (and still claim) that they were just being "prudent" and "real world" about what was "doable" and what "wasn't". They claimed they would happily support Renewable Energy when it was, uh, "cost effective". But, alas, they just couldn't, for our own good, OF COURSE, support "unproven" technologies.
We have all read them. Most of us     actually believed that tripe a few decades ago.

But, many of us finally figured out their tobacco corporation inspired profit over people and planet propaganda game. We all NOW know that all that FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt propaganda technique) was deliberate for the express purpose of delaying the Renewable Energy Revolution.
They lied serially and continually to defend their polluting business model.

So why should we give them the hopium benefit of the doubt for a technology, NOT YET INVENTED, when they attacked Renewable Energy technologies that had already been invented for decades? The increases in efficiency of Renewable Energy technologies came in spite of all the road blocks placed deliberately by the fossil fuel industry to strangle and destroy Renewable Energy technologies, not because of any good will or concern for the biosphere on the part of the polluters.

To those who believe the Fossil Fuel Industry can be trusted to act ethically for the good of society, the kitty below has a question for you:

Finally, even if there was a technofix to get us back to 350 PPM from 410 PPM while continuing the 'business as usual' (IPCC RCP-8.5) burning of fossil fuels, it would merely kick the resource can down the road. A future generation would find itself where those submarines are (but without a place to surface to) when their vaunted CO2 scrubbing technology could no longer hold back the massive collapse of civilization, along with the extinction of most, if not all, high order vertebrate species on the planet.

Technofixes, so far, have always eventually failed because the central issue is an ethical one, not a resource availability one, which is merely the symptom of unethical behavior by TPTB. Technofixes have just kicked the resource can down the road.

While we ARE tool makers, and will never escape that propensity to tinker, we also can choose to be ethical about our tools or unethical. If technology is applied ethically (i.e. by ensuring the protection of ALL the species affected that are known to provide a healthy habitat for humans), then technology could be a wise choice. However, if we don't learn to add and subtract with biosphere math, we are doomed.

« Last Edit: July 01, 2017, 05:39:22 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
50 Replies
Last post October 17, 2017, 03:13:27 pm
by AGelbert
213 Replies
Last post June 14, 2018, 05:48:16 pm
by AGelbert
90 Replies
Last post June 15, 2018, 01:27:49 pm
by AGelbert
31 Replies
Last post February 09, 2017, 07:20:24 pm
by AGelbert
166 Replies
Last post June 19, 2018, 09:32:37 pm
by AGelbert

+-Recent Topics

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
June 19, 2018, 09:35:01 pm

Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi by AGelbert
June 19, 2018, 09:33:42 pm

Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery by AGelbert
June 19, 2018, 09:32:37 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
June 19, 2018, 09:08:43 pm

Rick Simpson's Hemp Oil by AGelbert
June 19, 2018, 08:13:12 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
June 19, 2018, 07:38:40 pm

Money by AGelbert
June 19, 2018, 05:54:15 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
June 18, 2018, 09:12:14 pm

Human Life is Fragile but EVERY Life is Valuable by AGelbert
June 18, 2018, 08:30:58 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
June 18, 2018, 02:08:51 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial