+- +-


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

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 52
Latest: Carnesia
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 16222
Total Topics: 264
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Author Topic: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution  (Read 21182 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
June 18, 2018

Story Transcript


SHARMINI PERIES: And one cannot ignore the fact that this is, of course, playing out well in Canada. As you cite, the polls are reflecting that. But he’s also stepping into a year next year where he will have to stand for re-election.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: That is undoubtedly influencing Justin Trudeau. In fact, recent polls show that his party is more or less tied with that of the conservative party of Andrew Scheer. And there is a lot of disenchantment in this country about his failure to follow through with main, very important campaign commitments, for example, on fighting climate change. His purchase of the Trans Mountain tar sands pipeline cannot be reconciled with his commitment on climate change.

He promised that this would be, or the last election would be the last election in which we use the first-past-the-post electoral system, which results in parties that have a minority of the vote obtaining a majority of the seats in parliament. He’s not reforming the electoral electoral system at all. And there have been other- oh, and also, he’d promised to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, but in fact, has maintained them. So, there have been a whole range of promises that have really put him on thin ice with the Canadian electorate. I have no doubt that that is weighing heavily in the minds of the liberal leadership as the 2019 election approaches.

SHARMINI PERIES: Now Dimitri, one of the agenda items at the G7 summit was a reaffirmation of the commitments of the G7 countries to the Paris climate agreement. And now, partly all of this was derailed by Trump arriving at the G7 and the tariffs and so on. But give us a sense of Justin Trudeau appearing as a climate ambassador as something that he is committed to doing, and reducing emissions, and the contradictions in that appearance of a climate advocate.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: You know, when dealing with the Trudeau administration or government, as is so often the case in Western politics, one must always compare the reality to the rhetoric. The reality is that Canada is on a path to greatly exceed its commitment under the Paris climate accord. And in fact, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, not necessarily an objective source, but nonetheless, what they have to say is something that we should pay attention to when we’re talking about prognostications about future oil use in this country. They just issued a report predicting that the tar sands production will increase by fifty percent ☠️ in the coming years.

What we need to be doing is phasing out the tar sands as rapidly as we can do so, consistently with a reasonably healthy economy. The Trudeau government is running in the opposite direction, and as I just mentioned, not only is it determined to go ahead with building fossil infrastructure to support the tar sands industry. It has failed. It’s now had three years to do it. It has failed to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, which is the ultimate insanity. Why you would subsidize fossil fuels when we need to be keeping them in the ground is simply inexplicable. So, saying at the G7, we want to reaffirm our leadership in the Paris climate accord, or in terms of ensuring its respect, saying that is one thing. There is absolutely no action of any substance to back up that reaffirmation, unfortunately.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: Dimitri, Justin Trudeau, prime minister of Canada just had made a commitment, just a few weeks ago, to buy the Kinder Morgan Pipeline at some five billion dollars. And now, all of this is taking place at the same time when the Pope, trying to enforce his Encyclical about the environment and climate change, is actually meeting with the fossil fuel industry, asking them to curtail the emissions and save the earth. And and the G7 is talking about reaffirming the Paris climate agreement, yet Trudeau’s contradictions are just too much to handle here.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: You know, as we reported earlier this week, Sharmini, the Pope told senior executives of the world’s leading oil companies, including Exxon Mobil and BP, who were at the Vatican to hear his speech, and I’m quoting the Pope, “There is no time to lose.” And it is absolutely imperative that we begin to phase out tar sands. There’s simply no escaping that reality. And not only is Trudeau not doing that, but he’s being urged to even sacrifice Canadian lives by leaders on the Bay Street.

I mean, we had the most remarkable statement by the former governor of the Bank of Canada, David Dodge 🦖, a couple of days ago at a conference in Edmonton, that- he said definitively, “Canadians will die resisting this pipeline.” And then he went on to say, but Justin Trudeau must have the “fortitude,” the fortitude to stand up and complete the construction of this project, which is going to increase by a factor of three. The amount of diluted bitumen coming from the tar sands to the west coast of Canada is going to increase by a factor of seven, oil tanker traffic on the on the west coast of Canada. You know, what Justin Trudeau is doing cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be reconciled either with the Paris climate accord or with the Pope’s exhortations to take action now.

SHARMINI PERIES: Dimitri, are any of these contradictions on the part of Trudeau’s leadership, or lack thereof, when it comes to the climate being realized by all these young people that ended up supporting him in the last election and wanted some serious action on the climate?

DIMITRI LASCARIS: Well, I think the fact that he had a forty percent approval rating after being wildly popular outside of his government, I think that says quite a bit about how the population and particularly young people, who have given him a lot of support the last election, feel about his broken promises, particularly with respect to the climate change. I think he has a bit of an ace- I wouldn’t go so far as to state as an ace in the hole, but it certainly is a card that he can play to strengthen his standing amongst young voters.

And that is, he does appear to remain committed to the legalization, or at least the quasi-legalization, of cannabis in Canada. And so, there is legislation being advanced, and that’s a policy that’s very popular amongst young voters. So, he may be able to rehabilitate his image amongst them between now and the election next year, in large part by pursuing that initiative and fulfilling that campaign promise. But I don’t think anybody’s going to forget entirely how badly he’s betrayed his commitment to be a climate champion.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right. Now, in relation to the climate, again, here. The newly elected premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, had a few things to say about cap and trade this week. Give us the highlights of that statement.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: So, Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, entered into a cap and trade system with its neighboring province of Quebec and with the state of California in January of this year. And Doug Ford, the conservative premier-elect, campaigned explicitly on a promise to take Ontario out of that cap and trade system. The province has raised nearly two point nine billion dollars from the sale of carbon credits, according to a report issued last month. The money goes toward the operation of something called the Green Ontario Fund to pay for climate-friendly programs, rebates for home upgrades and clean technology pilot projects. Ford’s Conservative Party criticized the program because it results in higher costs to consumers for natural gas and gasoline. But Sharmini, that’s exactly what it is supposed to do. And that’s exactly what we should be doing.

We need to be deterring people from consuming fossil fuels by raising the cost of these polluting substances. We should not be encouraging fossil fuels consumption by lowering the cost of polluting. And yet, Doug Ford said, right out of the gate yesterday, that the first piece of legislation he intends to put forward is legislation withdrawing Ontario from the cap and trade system. Quebec is alarmed by this, understandably so, and they pointed out that their economy is going strong. In fact, Quebec, where I live, and as part of that system, has full employment and a growing economy. The whole notion that this is injurious to the economy is bogus, frankly, and it seems like nothing other than a sort of right-wing ideology that fits nicely within the agenda of the fossil fuels industry in Canada, which has quite a bit of power.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right, Dimitri. I thank you so much for joining us today on The Real News Network and giving us this Canada update. I know there’s so much more to talk about, so I will look forward to having you back next week.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: Always a pleasure, Sharmini, thank you.

SHARMINI PERIES: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution

"IT'S A SCAM!!!" Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's BRILLIANT Takedown of the Koch Brothers🦕🦖 & Donald Trump 🦀

Dose of Dissonance

Published on Apr 24, 2018

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse delivers a fiery speech on the corrupting influence of "creepy billionaires!" BUY TRUMP TOILET PAPER! http://amzn.to/2Fe08tb (Affiliate Link)

Support Dose of Dissonance's mission @ https://www.patreon.com/DoseofDissonance
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution

Az, I am of the studied opinion that the Earth ain't hollow. Sure, one can speculate that there may be a lot of something in the center that has some pockets due to some weird gravitational anomallies that exist at the center of mass that science has not discovered yet, but nuttin'can live below the lithosphere, as far as Im concerned. The rock eating bacteria critters that they have discovered in deep, deep places are still part of the biosphere. Even they cannot live above a certain temperature, which, by the way, gets too high even before the outer reaches of the lithosphere.

The folowing graphic is, IMHO, fairly accurate. Notice how far up the lithosphere is compared to all that matter below it. We've never gotten through it, you know.

If that Brooks pickup truck is powered with fork lift Trojan lead acid batteries, as it appears to me, the range is about the length of an average 18 hole golf course. That ain't competition for Musk. It wouldn't look too pretty on a golf course, either. ;)

A couple of years ago I read about a Russian boring project that was, at least at that time, the deepest penetration into the earth.

The Kola Superdeep Borehole was just 9 inches in diameter, but at 40,230 feet (12,262 meters) reigns as the deepest hole. It took almost 20 years to reach that 7.5-mile depth—only half the distance or less to the mantle.

Interesting article:

  Yep. I read about that project. They had a hell of a time with melted drill bits. It's HOT down there! In a sane world, we would be getting all that free heat piped up to geothermal plants to run our civilization. There I go again, pretending humans have a lick oof sense. That is so yesterday.  :(

Anyway, I'll try to keep posting. Surly, I learned something today that Palloy and the peak oil crowd will find some way to dance around, but it confirmed my worst fears about how SCREWED we are. I'll post the Gcaptain article in the "How long before the oil runs out?" thread I started. I don't often use this language, and Palloy will, of course, claim I am being "hysterical" and "alarmist" and so on, but we are TRULY ****! 🤬 😱
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Agelbert RANT: HAPPY **** DAY! MORE FOSSIL FUEL PROFITS! CAPITALISM HAS TRIUMPHED OVER THE BIOSPHERE. WHO CARES ABOUT POLLUTION WHEN WE'VE GOT OIL? Collapse? ARE YOU SHITTING ME? WE'VE GOT OIL INCREASED OUTPUT ALL THE WAY TO 2025. But don't you worry about a ting, folks, after 2025 all those naughty nasty fossil fuels will suddenly DISAPPEAR and we'll have a nice civilizational collapse and we can all hunt snakes with spears in the jungle in our pristine atmosphere. That is, after you pay me for the Brooklyn Bridge I just sold you, you **** IDIOTS! YOU SUICIDAL BIOSPHERE KILLING CAPITALIST MOTHER **** SONS OF A BITCHES! **** YOU FOSSIL FUEL FOOLS! **** YOU! YOU GOD DAMNED MORONIC DEVILS!

Norway’s Wildcat Wells Get Best Results Since 2010 Bonanza

June 22, 2018 by Bloomberg

File photo credit: Ole Jørgen Bratland / Statoil

By Mikael Holter (Bloomberg) — Oil companies in Norway have more to rejoice about than just higher crude prices: they’re now boasting the best exploration results in almost a decade.

If they keep that pace up, explorers could find close to 1 billion barrels of new oil and gas this year for the first time since the landmark discovery of the giant Johan Sverdrup oil field in 2010. 🤬 😱

The results are a welcome boost to Norway, which depends on exploration success to replenish a dwindling project pipeline and limit a drop in production from the middle of the next decade. The nation is emerging from a bruising three-year slump that saw oil companies cut budgets to the bone, strangling exploration activity. Results in the promising Arctic Barents Sea, which saw record efforts last year despite the downturn, were also a disappointment.

The tide could now be turning: with 10 wildcat wells completed in 2018, explorers have found about 330 million barrels of oil equivalent, according to Bloomberg calculations based on the mid-point estimate for all discoveries reported by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate. That’s already more than what the 24 wildcat wells delivered last year. And it’s the best performance per well since the Sverdrup discovery pushed the 2010 average to almost 100 million barrels.

Companies that focused on exploration near infrastructure over the past couple of years are now taking more risk, said Torgeir Stordal, the NPD’s exploration director.

“Prices are now coming back up, so activity is picking up, and they’ll want to drill wells that they might have held back on when oil prices were low,” he said in an interview in Stavanger on Thursday. “It’s a positive development.”

The NPD expects as many as 50 exploration wells this year, up from 36 last year, it said in a report published on Thursday. About 30 could be wildcat wells testing new prospects, meaning discovered resources could reach a total of 1 billion barrels if explorers maintain their efficiency.

“We’re drilling more wells and are being more aggressive,” said Gro Haatvedt, head of exploration at Aker BP ASA, one of the most active explorers offshore Norway. “High oil prices are helping, because we’re getting more money for exploration.”

Exploration successes so far this year include the double Hades and Iris discovery that OMV AG made with a single well in the Norwegian Sea. Together, they have a mid-point estimate of more than 140 million barrels of gas and condensate. Wintershall AG, Aker BP and Equinor ASA, the biggest Norwegian oil company, have also made discoveries.

Explorers will drill about 25 wells in the North Sea and 10 each in the Norwegian Sea and Barents Sea, Stordal said. Given current oil-price forecasts, the NPD expects overall exploration activity to be maintained in 2019, he said.

To be sure, explorers are still far from replacing production of oil and gas, which reached about 1.5 billion barrels of oil equivalent in 2017. Output is expected to test records by 2023, thanks to new fields and efficiency gains, before it drops from about 2025.

Discoveries are also smaller than they used to be — even the frontier Barents Sea, thought to hold two-thirds of Norway’s undiscovered oil and gas, has failed to deliver giants like the North Sea’s Sverdrup, Troll or Statfjord.

But small discoveries can be profitable if they’re close to existing infrastructure. For example, Equinor expects to develop this year’s 25 million barrel Lille Prinsen discovery in the North Sea.

“It’s important to have a balanced approach to both prospects near infrastructure and frontier areas,” the NPD’s Stordal said.

© 2018 Bloomberg L.P


Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
So with the world's consumption running at 33.6 billion barrels per year, you think it's good to have discovered 330 million barrels, with a hope to find 1 billion?  If that the best since 2010, then we are in real trouble.
Where would I find a fairly balanced guide to consumption, projected consumption, current production, and discovery that charts past present and future. It seems the peak oil stats run out around 2008-10 and the discoveries project into the future. Who brings both of those pictures together without an agenda? Forgive my wording let me know if my meaning is not clear.  It really seems that we cook ourselves AND run out of economically viable FF. I would like some numbers though to bring those two narratives together in my mind.

Palloy is, as usual, playing mathematical word games with the FACT that there CAN BE NO COLLAPSE, at least until the magical disappearance of oil after 2025. Don't hold your breath waiting for Palloy to ever use hard numbers to base his Confirmation Bias on. He USES Fossil Fuel Industry published numbers when it suits him and, when it does NOT, as the article I posted at the begining of this thread makes CLEAR, he claims the "Fossil Fuel Industry is making it up". How cleverly sophistic of him. 

David, here is an article that gives you an idea of how the real world has responded, for the past ten years, to the "Peak Oil" scaremongering.

As to reliable numbers, go to the initial article on this thread and research the ZME science web site. They do not DO false propaganda or fake numbers. If you believe Palloy more than them, then you are being taken for a ride, PERIOD.

What Ever Happened to ‘Peak Oil’?

Media 'retreats' from doomsday theory as U.S. production spikesBY: Elizabeth Harrington

February 2, 2018 4:13 pm

"From the steps of the Supreme Court to the White House press room, from global trading exchanges to the snowy reaches of Alaska — over the last week, you could hear the creak of history as it began to pivot in a half-dozen locales," an editorial in the New York Times read.

"The Age of Oil is at an end. Maybe not this year. Maybe not for five years. But signs of the coming collapse are evident."

The article, with the stark headline, "Oil's End," ran in March 2008.

Ten years later, we're still waiting for that "coming collapse." ::)

In fact, this week we learned the U.S. topped 10 million barrels a day in oil production in November, a level not reached since 1970. We hit that mark four months ahead of schedule, largely on the back of the shale industry, "once dismissed" by global oil exporters.

For years we heard about "peak oil," the theory of hitting a maximum amount of oil production and waiting for it to run out, none louder than in the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Paul Krugman told us we were "running out of planet to exploit" in 2008, warning, "this time may be different."

By September 2010, the Times green blog was circulating a study projecting the world would hit peak oil that year, leading to a "dire global economic crisis" by 2025 as a "result of a peak and an irreversible decline in world oil supplies."

By November: "Peak oil is not just here — it's behind us already."

Quoting from the International Energy Agency, the Times blog reported that crude oil production "probably topped out for good in 2006, at about 70 million barrels a day."

Of course by 2016, the IEA reported world production of 96 million barrels of oil per day, or 35 billion barrels a year.

The Times peak oil scare was not limited to its editorial pages. In June 2010, the Times profiled environmentalist "survivalists" who were stocking up on seeds and supplies out of fear the world would run out of oil.

Raven Gray, the leader of Transition US, a group helping towns "brace for life after oil," said, "There's lot of apocalyptic people in environmental circles." You don't say?

The Washington Post was also a bit premature on its peak oil scare. "Wake Up, America. We're Driving Toward Disaster," an editorial read in May 2008. The editorial advocated changes to the "way we produce food, "conduct commerce and trade," the "way we travel," the "way we occupy the land," and the "way we acquire and spend capital," in response to peak oil.

The next month, the Post, remarked that the "world may have arrived at Peak Oil," while acknowledging that "this may not be literally true."

"[E]stimates of vast undiscovered oil reservoirs imply that Peak Oil is decades away," said Robert J. Samuelson. "But governments that control 75 percent or more of known reserves are behaving as if Peak Oil is already here."

"The grim price outlook by [economist Jeffrey] Rubin and others presumes that this situation persists," he said.

"Of course, they could be wrong."

By December 2011 the Post pronounced, "Oil's getting harder and harder to come by."

But, of course, they could be wrong.

In 2015 the Post and Samuelson declared, "The retreat of ‘peak oil.'"

"Oil is a finite natural resource," Samuelson said. "There's only so much of it. When it's gone, it's gone."

"The trouble is," Samuelson added, "that this compelling logic has yet to play out in the real world."


Agelbert NOTE: The above article contains several links that you may wish to peruse to get to the truth. You don't need to believe a word Palloy or I say. You are, as far as I can tell, fairly objective about this. If you do all the proper research, you will come to the conclusion that Peak Oil is not a problem, or an obstacle so insurmountable as to cause a collapse, and never was, as far as obtaining energy to run this Polluting Monstrocity called Human civilization.


So, how long before we run out of fossil fuels? In order to project how much time we have left before the world runs out of oil, gas, and coal, one method is measuring the R/P ratios — that is the ratio of reserves to current rates of production. At the current rates of production, oil will run out in 53 years, natural gas in 54, and coal in 110. This is bearing in mind a 2015 World Energy Outlook study by the International Energy Agency, which predicted fossil fuels will constitute 59% of the total primary energy demand in 2040, even despite aggressive climate action policies.

Other researchers, organizations, and governments have different deadlines for fossil fuel exhaustion, depending on the data and assumptions that they make, as well as political affiliation and interests. The American Petroleum Institute estimated in 1999 the world’s oil supply would be depleted between 2062 and 2094, assuming total world oil reserves at between 1.4 and 2 trillion barrels. In 2006, however, the Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) predicted that 3.74 trillion barrels of oil remained in the Earth — three times the number estimated by peak oil proponents. 👀

Is Peak Oil behind us? Not clear

While we know for sure that the exploitation of fossil fuels is limited, estimates can vary wildly because new deposits are sometimes found and new technology enables access to previously untapped oil or gas fields or allows more efficient extraction. So, the challenge in estimating a timescale for fossil fuel depletion lies in the fact that new resources are added fairly regularly. Therefore, we have to keep in mind that all of these estimates are based on R/P ratios and thereby only consider proven reserves, not probable or possible reserves of resources. For instance, in 1980, the R/P ratio suggested only 32 years of oil production from existing reserves. 

A 1977 report issued by the Energy Information Administration concluded that the United States could only access 32 billion barrels of oil reserves and 207 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves. But from then to 2010, the country extracted 84 billion barrels of oil (2.6 times more than the initial estimate) and 610 trillion cubic feet of gas (2.9 times the initial reserve estimate). What’s more, reserves are growing. Today, the U.S. has increased the size of its reserves by a third since 2011 thanks to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracking which enable access to oil and gas trapped in underground rock formation. Previously, it wasn’t economically feasible to extract these resources.

As technology continues to improve, both governments and oil & gas companies will be able to access new reserves — some that can’t currently be exploited and others that are still unidentified.


Palloy cannot handle the truth, so he claims the Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) numbers are "fake news". 

Here are a few token examples of what is really going on out there. You know the  Canada tar sands part and the USA fracking part that are both producing monstrous amounts of fossil fuels. You probably know about the Troll A (which cost about 15 billion dollars to build and plant on the North Sea bottom) ocean platform that is pumping oil and gas in mega amounts.
There are many, many untapped fields like the one they found near the Falklands two years ago with several BILLIONS of barrels of oil waiting to be extracted when the price is right.

Shell JUST BEGAN to pump gas from the Gulf of Mexico at $30 a BOE. Does that sound like a well they want to husband because its going to run out quick? I don't think so.

Shell just made operational the largest floating structure ever made by humans, the purpose of which is to drill for and pump gas out of the ocean bottom at multi-well rates.

Exxon is busy doing all sorts of production I do not have time to go into. They are producing MORE, not less, hydrocarbon product. Then there is China, Russia the Saudis, Qatar, Iran, Norway etc.

ONE THIRD of the traffic in the Panama Canal is now gas bulk carriers, when less than 5 years go, it was ZIP!

As K-Dog stated, we've got coal out the whazzo. Even if every oil and gas well petered out tomorrow, a ridiculously unlikely scenario, coal, through the process you have probably read about called gassification, can be feed stock for any and all hydrocarbon crap we now use to make plastics, fertilizers, lubricants, gasolne, diesel (and so on).

Yeah, it's the MOTHER of pollution generating processes, but so what? Almost everybody on this forum is so f u c k i ng fixated on ENERGY, that pollution does not seem to be an issue. Okay, if we don't give a flat f u c k about pollution, then we simply do not have to worry about peak fossil fuels, even if the oil and gas peter out on Palloy's alarmist "the sky is falling" schedule. This is logical. This is objective. The peak oil meme is not applicable in the real world, period.

The "hydrocarbon burning pollution will kill us" IS applicable for those who inhabit the reality based community.

Did you know that Trumpy just reversed an Obama rule that would not allow drilling for oil and gas in those Great Lakes that border your country? Yeah, he just did that this month. I don't think that is too encouraging to people who like clean water, do you?

The discovery made in the article I posted yesterday is just ONE, of many that are going on as we speak all over this God forskaen, fossil fuel loving, screwed up world. Celebrate cheap oil if you wish, but don't believe the bullshit about it running out, at least not in your lifetime.

On this thread, I will make it a habit of posting articles on oil production rates and new discoveries of fossil fuels that can be tapped with present technology. It will be entertaining to watch Palloy try to talk his way around those news items. Stay tuned.
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
AG: Palloy cannot handle the truth, so he claims the Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) numbers are "fake news". 

No, since 2003 when I realised Peak Oil was real and urgent, CERA has been out there trying to bamboozle people with briefings and stats on why Peak Oil isn't true.  Why does AG quote them and the stupid journos that believe CERA's BAU future?  Because he is a shill for the fossil fuel industry, or is so ignorant on physics he doesn't know what is true.  His disbelief of Hess's Law is PROOF of that. His insistence that I am a shill for the the FF industry, or ignorant of his "biosphere math" (which he made up and doesn't exist in anyone's scientific view).

CERA is a FF industry fake news source.  No need to use fake figures.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Palloy to ever use hard numbers to base his Confirmation Bias on

So with the world's consumption running at 33.6 billion barrels per year, [do] you think it's good to have discovered 330 million barrels, with a hope to find 1 billion?

Answer my question, AG.

I never said I "disbelieved" Hess's Law, BULLSHIT ARTIST. I SAID, over a year ago, that Hess's Law enthalpy numbers INCLUDE WASTE HEAT, which makes them faulty when applied to ENERGY RETURNED in a combustion chamber, DUMKOFF! Now, if you consider that "proof of my ignorance", that's fine with me. Just don't say I doubt that the energy needed to boil water with an open flame is incorrect in Hess's Law numbers. It's correct, as far as that goes. So, you can take all the words you are putting in my mouth to discredit my knowledge of this issue and put them where the sun doesn't shine, Einstein.

As to your question, let me remind you that the subject HERE is the alleged "collapse" that "PEAK OIL" will trigger. It's a pretty silly question you are posing, because you know damned good and well that I do not consider ANY new oil or gas find to be "good". It is BAD for the biosphere. THAT is why in bends me out of shape when ANOTHER big find (yes, Einstein, it IS a big find! - not all the 33.6 Billion BOE is one place - nice try, though  ) is announced. Have you ever heard about the Biosphere Camel's back and the straws? That new find is a big assed STRAW!

Tell me WHY a new find does not erode the Peak Oil Meme? Spare me the bullshit that because the find is "less than world annual consumption", it is not relevant. We've been down this road before. You always want to isolate each and every bit of evidence of increased global producton by claiming it is not "valid" in the overall trend towards collapse. That is the kind of "logic" that refuses to connect the dots because those dots undermine your Confirmation Bias.  👎

Tell me why the billions of BOE that are NOT being exploited until the price is right is "evidence" of looming collapse? And YEAH, THAT's why all those oil rigs hither and yon shut down massively in 2014 and stayed that way for about three years. "Peak oil" did not have JACK SH IT to do with reduced production. Now that the price is gettin' better, the FF upstream maniacs are going out to get oil and gas like gangbusters, and YOU KNOW IT (or should).

Please answer the question NOW.

Tell me, Mathematician, how much BOE of all the world's fossil fuels from coal, oil, tar sands and gas we MUST have to prevent a collapse? You really need to state a number and stand by it, you know. ;D  If you think we MUST HAVE 35 billion BOE a year to prevent the collapse of civilization, SAY SO.

If you do not want to give a number, then you are playing fast and loose with the concept of peak oil. I will call you a bullshit artist if you do not answer, NOW, what the minimum amount of FF (available to be sold and  burned on the market AFTER they have been extracted) ARE REQUIRED ANNUALLY in order to prevent the collapse of civilization.

If you say it is 35 billion BOE, I will laugh in your face, with hard data from, among other sources, the Rocky Mountain Institute. They will really get your drawers in a bunch because they are so "irrationally optimistic", from your fascinating point of view, that they make the "outrageous" claim that the world can run on 80% LESS FOSSIL FUELS, annually, than we use now, WITHOUT a drop in our current standard of living. Yeah, sure, SCOFF all you want. That's how you roll.  👎

Regardless of your habit of scoffing and sniping quips, you NEED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION about minimum FF needed annually to prevent a collapse, or you have ZERO credibility in your "collapse will save us" pitch.

Why do you refuse to address all the other real increases in FF production out there?

Answer the question with DATA, not a negative quip, please.

Why are you fixating on this ONE story, that, whether you want to believe it or not, is symptomatic of a much broader trend? This is not the first story I have posted that you tried to yawn about. I jumped because, unlike you, I DO research a few times a week what the fossil Fuelers are up to. Right now the workers on some of the ocean platforms are calling for a strike. They want more money. Expect the price to go up pronto. I like that. ;D Maybe you do, and maybe you don't. For me, the higher the price, the BETTER. Yes, that will bring MORE FF exploitation activity as they try to cash in, but they still will have to compete with that clean renewable energy technology that Palloy is ALWAYS quick to claim (a TOTAL FABRICATION, by the way) is "ERoEI negative". I've tried to show you how wrong you are on that and you just will not listen. Fine. Others here do know how to add and subtract in Energy math, never mind the Biosphere Math you avoid like the plague, where POLLUTION costs need to be SUBTRACTED from energy returned.

I've been a bit long winded here so I will repeat the question:
Why are you fixating on this ONE story, that, whether you want to believe it or not, is symptomatic of a much broader trend? 

Answer the question with DATA, not a negative quip, please.

Why do you refuse to adress the present trend of increased production and consumption?

Answer the question with DATA, not a negative quip, please.

What is your evidence that ZME is not a reputable news site and CERA is a FF industry fake news source?

Answer the question with DATA, not a negative quip, please.

Why did you not address the part of the February 2018  article that stated the following?
In fact, this week we learned the U.S. topped 10 million barrels a day in oil production in November, a level not reached since 1970.

If you do not want answer, then STFU about Peak oil, please.
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Agelbert NOTE: I am posting these two articles here because they are applicable to the discussion. My suspicions from what I read in the first article were confirmed when I subsequently read the second article while perusing my e-mails. This is absolutely tragic for the biosphere. This is more evidence that Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from the burning of hydrocarbons are the real threat to our civilization, not and peak oil (AND peak ALL Fossil Fuels). We will cook from Catastrophic Climate Change 😟 long before we run out of hydrocarbons to burn.

Solar Prices Nosedive After China Pullback Floods Global Market

June 21, 2018

By Christopher Martin, Bloomberg
Solar panels were already getting cheaper this year, and then China pulled the plug this month on about 20 GW of domestic installations. The result was a glut of global inventories, and now prices are plunging even faster.

China, the world’s biggest solar market, on June 1 slammed the brakes on new projects that would have had as much capacity as about 20 nuclear power plants. With a global panel glut it’s a buyer’s market and developers in other countries are delaying purchases, holding out for even lower prices.

The average price for a polysilicon module slumped 4.79 percent since May 30, reaching a record low of 27.8 cents a watt Wednesday, according to PVInsights. That’s on track to be the biggest monthly decline since December 2016, the last time the industry was facing a global oversupply. China manufactures about 70 percent of the world’s solar components.

The decline will hurt the largest manufacturers like JinkoSolar Holding Co. and is a boon for developers like Sunrun Inc., which are expected to benefit from lower costs.

“Chinese and international project developers are putting their orders on hold as modules get cheaper,” Yali Jiang, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said in a research note Tuesday. By the end of the year, she expects module prices will slide to 24 cents a watt 👀, down 35 percent from 37 cents at the end of 2017.

©2018 Bloomberg News


Agelbert NOTE: Why don't I think this news is actually good? Because, to anyone that reads between the lines, it means China is, rather than contiinuing the big push for total Renewable Energy, is finding it cheaper (when the pollution issue is ignored, of course -replacing coal with GAS cuts down on particulates, but does nothing to slow GHG pollution) to buy GAS for energy than to get it from Solar Panels.

They are probably suddenly getting GAS real cheap, some of which comes from the USA, not just the usual suspects like Russia and Iran. This "bridge fuel" means an INCREASE in global emissions in an already runaway GHG situation 🔥. China uses a LOT OF ENERGY!

I'm sure the Fossil Fuel funded Climate Change Deniers will tell us this is "no big deal"😈.

I think it is one more straw breaking the Biosphere Camel's Back. IOW, it's probably just about (see below) for Human civilization, even if it takes another two or three decades to feel the full brunt of Catastrophic climate Change.

China Sails Past Japan to Become World’s Largest Buyer of Natural Gas

June 24, 2018 by Bloomberg

Photo: VladSV / Shutterstock.com

By Dan Murtaugh (Bloomberg) — China’s drive for cleaner skies has pushed it past Japan to become the world’s largest buyer of natural gas, a milestone for a nation that wasn’t even importing the fuel 15 years ago.

The development underscores how rapidly China is boosting natural gas use at the expense of dirtier fuels like oil and coal to meet President Xi Jinping’s pollution-cutting goals. Governments, especially in the country’s northern regions, have forced millions of homes and factories to replace coal boilers with gas burners.

China imported 7.41 million metric tons of natural gas through pipelines and seaborne tankers in May, according to data released Saturday by the General Administration of Customs. That puts it at 34.9 million tons for the first five months of the year. Japan’s imports during that period total 34.5 million tons, according to its Ministry of Finance. China bought more than Japan in some months last year, but this is the first time its cumulative imports during a year have been higher.

The nation’s soaring natural gas demand has been a boon for the global liquefied natural gas market. China’s on track to become the world’s biggest LNG importer by 2021 as growth in domestic production and pipelines won’t be able to keep pace with needs, analysts at JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in a report June 15.

LNG became the biggest source of China’s overseas gas supply most months over the past year. The nation imported 4.15 million tons of the fuel via tanker last month, compared with 3.27 million tons by pipeline, Saturday’s data show. Piped gas supplies could get a boost late next year when Russia starts up its Power of Siberia pipeline  .

China’s first liquefied natural gas terminal opened in 2004 and its first major import pipeline was commissioned in 2009.

© 2018 Bloomberg L.P


Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
You're more than capable of standing up for yourself. If you needed a mod, you'd get one.

Your own rhetoric, while less colorful, is equally objectionable at times.

You're assertion that AG "doesn't know what he's about" because he used the term "negative EROEI" when he really meant EROEI<1 was obviously intended to be some kind of authoritarian rebuke, since you and I and everyone else around here knew exactly what he meant, although his language might have been imprecise.

Each of you could afford to show a bit more respect to the other. The discussion is a good one, and you both can argue the points. Stick to that.

You too AG.

I here ya, Eddie. You are right. I'll try to dial back my Kansas Ruffian angry Jayhawker rhetoric. I agree it really does not shed any light on my claim that peak oil is not a real concern and Catastrophic Climate Change is a dire concern.

As you just read from Palloy, he refused to answer my questions, especially that one about the minimum FF needed to prevent a collapse. After quickly Ad homing my questions and my logic, he, proceeded to parade his "razor sharp brain" (that's his own term, not mine) with a discussion of thermodynamics.

Since you do have a profound knowlege of the science here, AND you figured out quickly what I really meant by the "negative ERoEI" term I used, let me add a couple of past history nuggets from my knock down drag out argument with Palloy about the flaws in Hess's Law, as applied to combustion chambers:

When the enthalpy for various combustible substances, from hydrocarbons (long or short chained to the simplest, like CH4 - ethene is there too but it is a plant hormone, as you know, and not applicable to this discussion) is calculated, there is no time constraint for the combustion process. Consequently, the energy they measure to boil a certain amount of water, in an open flame, not a combustion chamber, is the total energy released from complete combustion.

Gasolene is a mix of several long and short chained hydrocarbons, all of which have different time requirements for complete combustion to be achieved. When gasolene is used to boil water in an open flame, all the Hess Law numbers represent the actual amount of energy released. The Fossil Fuel industry uses these enthalpy numbers to come up with the "higher energy density" assumptions they use for gasolene versus other fuels like Ethanol. This is happy talk bullshit.

The reason it is prevaricating horse poopy is that gasolene never completely combusts in a combustion chamber for the two real world physics reasons I just gave: There ain't enough time AND the hydrocarbons are a mix of long and short chains.

As you know, and Palloy knows too, but he doesn't like to talk about it  ;D, incomplete combustion results, not just in less energy than the complete combustion numbers from Hess's Law enthalpy calculations exhibit, but an efficiency destroying phenomenon called waste heat.

The incomplete combustion products like buckyball carbon soot substances and others (Gasolene has other chemical substances that are not hydrocarbons there to keep the mixture as homogenous as possible - they slow combustion for reasons of octane rating requirements in the internal combustion engine - this compromise increases waste heat) increase engine wear and shorten the MTBF of the mechanical parts.

Those parts need to be manufactured. That takes energy from fossil fuels. All that extra energy is never subtracted from the Hess's Law complete combustion happy numbers used for hydrocarbons in a combustion chamber.

That entire argument was based on my studied claim, backed by none other than Thomas Edison and the US Naval Laboratories in 1906, that ethanol is a superior fuel. Palloy vigorously attempted to refute my claim by citing numbers from HESS'S LAW. The reason he grabbed for Hess's Law numbers is that Hess's Law gives ethanol a lower enthalpy than most hydrocarbons.

I calmly explained that, the totally homogenous nature of ethanol, and the fact that it carries its own oxygen to the combustion chamber to aid in the combustion process, gives it a much higher percentage of burning towards complete combustion. In fact, due to that oxygen ethanol carries, even in the split seconds it has to combust in a cylinder under high compression (a requirement for ethanol efficiency is high compression, as you know), complete combustion is the norm.

But it does not stop there. Ethanol requires no additives to keep the mixture homogenous. So, because it completely combusts and has no additives, it produces such a small amount of waste heat that you can put your hand on an engine's manifold that has been running on ethanol over an hour and you will not get burned. You can keep your hand there. That means that mechanical parts wear does not occur at anywhere near the rate it does with gasolene. That means the metal parts last longer. That means the energy not needed for said engine MTBF parts replacement ADDS to the true energy density calculation of ethanol, making it far superior to gasolene. Hess's Law does not goes there. That's why the Fossil Fuelers like Charles Hall used Hess's Law to come up with their "high energy density" calculations. It is nothing but pseudo- erudite BULLSHIT.

In summary, The energy density of gasolene is, in the real world of the physics of internal combustion engines, lower than that of ethanol. The only caveat is that you must have a high compression engine and you must not have fuel lines and a tank that made of some plastic or rubber substance which can dry and crack from ethanol exposure ( as you know, alcohol is a drying agent). The BULLSHIT about ethanol "attracting water" is assed backwards, as I explained to Surly well over a year ago in a post about my days as an air taxi pilot, when we had to fill the Piper Navajo Aircraft fuel tanks after the last flight or the air gap would produce condensation (temperatures go down at night and cool the air in the  tank), which would sink to the bottom and, when it got in the fuel lines, cause engine failure when you least wanted it too. Ethanol ALWAYS mixes completely with any water present, unlike gasolene. Anyone that has drank whiskey and water understands that.  ;D

That ethanol rabbit hole goes even deeper. Because it has such low waste heat, a high compression engine could be made two thirds lighter. However, said engine would be rapidly destroyed if you tried to run gasolene in it. It is little wonder that the LAW in the Fossil Fuel States of Amerika makes it ILLEGAL to make ethanol for fuel inless it is "fuel grade" (i.e. has a minimum amount of GASOLENE in it 😈).

Eddie, I am tired of Palloy's prevarication. His obssession with the "peak oil" is not reality based. The fact that he refuses to give a number of minimum FF required annually to prevent a collapse of Human Civilization is evidence that there is nuttin' to his "peak oil will save us" claim.

« Last Edit: June 26, 2018, 05:17:22 pm by AGelbert »
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
I don't expect this to be resolved completely, but I appreciate you being willing to keep it a bit more friendly. I see your point on ethanol, which makes sense in the context you're describing.

I'm not sure what Palloy's background is, because he never shares much personal info, but my guess is that he's coming from a teaching background in addition to having been an IT professional. His POV is one I'd expect from an experienced and knowledgable teacher who taught exceptional high school students or college students.

Although he likes to say the word mathematics, he is equally schooled on physics and physical chemistry (and general chemistry, including solutions). His arguments do tend to place emphasis on calculated theoretical thermodynamic results and ignore the sort of real world deviations from that (like incomplete combustion) that would be of more of interest to an engineer or someone actually building real engines.

But it's really good to have someone smart and well educated on the Diner who can debunk obvious bullshit, which he is good at. There are a bunch of people who want to believe in magic, when it comes to understanding FF's. (And renewables, unfortunately).

It is my studied opinion that the advocates of a 100% Renewable Energy Transition are far more reality based than the fossil fuel funded happy talkers, endlessly reminding us, with a litany of half-truths, how much we "owe" the fossil fuel welfare queen Industry for destroying our democracy by buying our politiicans giving us such a high standard of living. Never mind the "irrelevant" MASSIVE, biosphere DESTROYNG pollution issue. Belief in magic solutions, (See: Trust us, we'll think of something) is what the Fossil Fuel Fascists specialize in.  😈🦕

One salient point that must never be left out of the discussion about readership in the Doomstead Diner is the fact that it is based on collapse being triggered by peak oil.

When what actually materializes is a global multi-government fascist pollution producing monstrocity that prefers to see the entire biopshere go **** up than to allow a collapse, the interest in this forum will fade. As RE says, this is part of Collapsenicksphere, or something like that.

I see galloping fascism. I see increased human depravity and ruthless high tech cruelty like has never been seen before. I see massive inceases in pollution. I see more and more species we depend on being so depleted, even before they go extinct, that TPTB start engineering a human population "useless eater" die-off so that they can enjoy their Libertarian Wet Dream for another century or so (until they end up as crispy critters while trying to move to Mars).

I do not see a collapse. I entertained that idea for a while back in 2012. After much study, research and reading, I am convinced that collapse talk is "high energy density" hot air that makes fossil fuels appear "precious", rather than the biosphere killing poisons that they actually are. That is profit over planet stupidity.

I sincerely wish Palloy is right and I am wrong.

But, unlike Palloy, I live in the real world of cause and effect. Tesla understood people like Palloy. So do I.

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Peak Oil: Problems And Possibilities

By Scott Hornby


The nonrenewable status of fossil fuels isn't up for debate - we've run out of dinosaurs - but the timing and consequences of peak oil are controversial. Some believe that we are already on the down slope, while others believe this is nothing but fear mongering.


Hubbert predicted a global peak around the year 2000. This is where things get muddy. Often, the only way to be certain of a long-term trend is in retrospect. Some experts believe we have already reached a peak or that one is imminent, while others predict a peak in 2020 or later. A report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy titled "Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk" (2005), also called the Hirsch Report, summarizes some of the major predictions that have been published by energy and economics experts:

As you can see from the chart above, an exact date for a peak is difficult to predict even for those involved in the industry. Many experts say we have already crested the peak or that it will come before 2010, while others forecast that it will occur a decade or more later.

The difficulty in pinning down an exact date is due to geological complexities, measurement problems, pricing variations, demand elasticity and political influences. What is clear, however, is that we don't have another hundred years of seemingly limitless supply.


Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) - an energy advisor to companies, governments, financial institutions and technology providers - sees peak oil as an opportunity. CERA predicts an oil plateau after 2030, rather than a peak or bell-shaped curve, during which oil production levels off. This scenario would provide time for unconventional liquid fuels to fill the gap. CERA points to production from heavy oil sands, gas-related liquids (condensate and natural gas liquids), gas-to-liquids and coal-to-liquids.

Full article:

Agelbert NOTE: While CERA, the alleged shills for the Fossil Fuel Industry (according to Palloy) are perhaps more "irrationally positive" about the availability of hydrocarbons, their "production from heavy oil sands, gas-related liquids (condensate and natural gas liquids), gas-to-liquids and coal-to-liquids" scenario, while ruinously polluting, is based on REAL WORLD sources of hydrocarbons and PRESENT Coal Gassification technology. Don't tell me they won't resort to that as long as they CONTINUE to IGNORE the GHG pollution reality on behalf of Hydrocarbon Industry PROFITS.

And furthermore, we may not have another hundred years of seemingly limitless supply, but there is no mention in the above, well referenced article, of a collapse any time soon.

If the issue was so dire, they would have mentioned how a gradual depletion of hydrocarbons would cause a collapse. They did not.

There are actually THREE Peak Oil scenarios, not one. Unfortunately for the readers of this investment advice article, they completely ignore the pollution costs. This is a grievous error, but I post this so you can understand why most people do not take GHG pollution, or the reality that Renewable Energy CAN, AND MUST, totally replace hydrocarbon burning if we are to survive, seriously. :(

A Peak Oil Primer

Simply put, peak oil is the recognition that there will be a day in the future when oil production enters an irreversible decline. This situation can evolve through a few different scenarios, including:

A. A production decline, when new deposits prove too difficult to tap and existing reserves start to draw down. (Also see, The Cost of Shale Oil Versus Conventional Oil.)

B. A production decline when oil alternatives become more cost effective, pricing oil out of the market, and making exploration and production unprofitable.

C. A production decline when all the oil deposits on earth have been exploited, and there is simply no more to be had no matter the price or difficulty.

Full article:

The REAL Bottom Line

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Jeffrey Phillips, Sr. Graphic Designer, Webber Energy Group, The University of Texas at Austin

Apr 30, 2016

Transportation is the big user of petroleum, 92% vs just 1% for generating electricity. Turning off the lights doesn't save oil.

Electric generation is the single largest consumer of primary energy, and 65% of that comes from fossil fuels, mostly coal, then natural gas. That mix is changing, with gas use growing  as environmental regulations raise the cost of using dirty coal.


Agelbert NOTE: Jeffrey Phillips wrote the above before Trump came to power. I guess they don't have to "worry" about all those pesky environmental regulations any more.    USA! USA!

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Agelbert NOTE: Another 'more oil and gas to be pulled out of the oceans' DOT to connect for those who have eyes to see. 8)

Jack-Up Specialist Shelf Drilling Falls in Oslo Debut, But Optimistic on Rising 🦖 Rig Rates

June 25, 2018 by Reuters

jack-up rig Lukasz Z / Shutterstock


By Nerijus Adomaitis OSLO, June 25 (Reuters) – A fall in equities and oil markets knocked shares in Shelf Drilling on their Oslo market debut on Monday, although the world’s largest owner of shallow water rigs was optimistic rig rates are set to rise.

The Dubai-based company’s shares were trading at 63.64 Norwegian crowns at 1400 GMT, below their initial public offering (IPO) price of 65.35 crowns.

“I think it (the share price move) is more of a response to a broader market movement than anything specific to the company,” Chief Executive David Mullen said.

Stocks in Asia and Europe fell on concerns about a trade dispute between the United States and other major economies, while Brent crude eased after a deal between OPEC and other oil producers to increase production.

Shelf Drilling’s debut came four years after it abandoned plans to list in London in the wake of an oil price downturn.

The company raised about $225 million in the offering, it said on Friday, the latest drilling firm to list in Oslo to raise capital.

Mullen told Reuters on Monday the company expected to see higher rig rates in 2019 and more consolidation of the fragmented market.

He forecast utilisation of marketed rigs would rise to near 80 percent by the end of this year from 74 percent currently, giving rig owners more leverage to ask for higher prices.

Offshore Oil Recovery Beginning in World’s Harshest Environments

“So going into 2019 we should see some pricing power, and some real price movements,” he said in an interview, adding the Middle East, North Sea and West Africa were the most promising regions for jack-up rigs.

About 80 percent of Shelf Drilling’s current business relates to drilling extra wells at existing oilfields to help to drain the reservoirs or to repair existing wells.

As a recovery in crude oil prices increases oil companies’ interest in offshore exploration and field developments, Mullen plans to acquire more so-called premium rigs, better suited to search for new resources than standard specification rigs.

“Today we have eight premium jack-ups and we want to see that grow … I would like to ultimately grow to a fleet of 15, maybe 20, premium jack-up rigs,” Mullen said.

Mullen also said he expected more consolidation in the drilling rig market between small players, and big deals too.

Borr Drilling to Acquire Paragon Offshore in Push to Consolidate Jack-Up Rig Market

“I think you are going to see some big mergers … but we are more interested in acquiring assets, not so much interested in doing broad M&A deals,” he said.

Copenhagen-listed conglomerate A.P. Moller-Maersk is expected to try to sell its drilling arm, Maersk Drilling, but has not found a buyer so far.

Mullen said Shelf Drilling itself was not seeking a broad deal with Maersk, but could be interested in buying some of the Danish company’s benign environment jack-up rigs.

($1 = 8.1000 Norwegian crowns) (Reporting by Nerijus Adomaitis; Editing by Jane Merriman and Mark Potter)

(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2018.

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
AG, your attempts to deluge the argument with volumes of stuff doesn't help. I will try and answer your last three posts, and leave the others for my next post.

You are saying that the heat produced from burning gasoline according to Hess's Law is incorrect because when you burn gasoline in an ICE it doesn't all get burnt.  That is hardly the fault of Hess's Law, is it?  It is clearly the fault of the ICE - it produces a hot exhaust, waste heat.  All the values for the Table of Standard Molar Enthalpy are arrived at by actual real calorimetry experiments, where all burning is complete and no heat is lost.

What is the minimum amount of fossil fuels we must burn each year to prevent a collapse of civilization during that year?

I HAVE already answered that question, but you didn't read it:
It is a silly question to ask "at what exact figure will it all collapse?", it is a matter of confidence that the oil is there to be had.  When the confidence goes, the oil majors' shares will collapse, and with it the financial system.

If there is not enough fuel (of the right types) to keep running the Army, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, Cyber Force, Police, Ambulance, Emergency Services, Courts, Prisons, Public Transport, TV, radio, the mobile phone system, the landline phone system, the banking system, hospitals and a host of other "essential services", then society will collapse.  Any attempt at establishing a figure for this is pointless, as it cannot possibly be accurate. 

The most critical element in that list is the banking system, as without a payments system running, no one can buy anything, including electricity (which involves getting coal miners to work on time and paying them so they can buy food). Once the electricity goes off, the internet goes down, water stops coming out the taps, toilets won't flush, and the zombies take to the streets, armed to the teeth.

The Hirsch Report (2005) (Page 5) says:
1. When world oil peaking will occur is not known with certainty. A fundamental problem in predicting oil peaking is the poor quality of and possible political biases in world oil reserves data. Some experts believe peaking may occur soon. This study indicates that “soon” is within 20 years.

2. The problems associated with world oil production peaking will not be temporary, and past “energy crisis” experience will provide  relatively little guidance. The challenge of oil peaking deserves immediate, serious attention, if risks are to be fully understood and mitigation begun on a timely basis.

6. Mitigation will require a minimum of a decade of intense, expensive effort, because the scale of liquid fuels mitigation is inherently extremely large.

7. While greater end-use efficiency is essential, increased efficiency alone will be neither sufficient nor timely enough to solve the problem. Production of large amounts of substitute liquid fuels will be required. A number of commercial or near-commercial substitute fuel production technologies are currently available for deployment, so the production of vast amounts of substitute liquid fuels is feasible with existing technology.

Hirsch was an independent contractor, contracted to produce the report by DoE.  He put the report up on the DoE website, but it was taken down when the Peak Oilers started quoting from it and asking DoE difficult questions.  Fortunately a school science website had downloaded a copy of it, and I downloaded it from them and put it on my RunningOnEmpty website.

It is all about mitigating the Peak Oil problem, so wouldn't have happened if DoE had thought Peak Oil wasn't real.

Here is Hirsch going through all the points, but you don't need it if you already Peak Oil aware:

[embed=640,360]<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PVoDYha8ZRM" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]

I  am "deluging" nothing. If you are dot connecting challenged, that's your problem, Palloy.

Oh, and I just read your post. That is a NON-answer to my question. Give me A NUMBER, Palloy.

My number is around 7 Billion BOE plus or minus a billion BOE annually. As long as there is that minimum amount, which there certainly WILL BE for at least 50 YEARS,  there will BE NO COLLAPSE, PERIOD.

The speculation by the Hirsch Report cherry picked section that you put in red is just speculation, nothing more. You cannot base your collapse scenario on it. Stay on the subject Palloy. I am NOT discussing Renewable Energy technology with you. You cannot handle that discussion objectively.

Mitigation ain't your thing either. It never was. I've got a nice quote of yours from two years or so back that shows what you REALLY think about pollution costs. I'll post it here when I decide it needs to be posted.

 Have nice day.
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
The Expanded Panama Canal Just Turned Two: Here Are Some Facts, Figures and Highlights the First Few Years of Operation

June 27, 2018 by gCaptain

Photo: Panama Canal Authority

The Panama Canal on Tuesday marked the two-year anniversary of the inauguration of Expanded Panama Canal, the largest enhancement project in the waterway’s 103-year history.

To date, the Canal has transited 3,745 Neopanamax vessels, exceeding the performance exceptions of Expanded Canal’s Neopanamax Locks.

“Two years ago, we pledged to usher in a new era for world commerce,” said Panama Canal Administrator Jorge L. Quijano. “Today, as we reflect upon our countless achievements and ever-expanding impact, we proudly reaffirm this commitment to the global maritime community.”

Over the past two years, the Panama Canal has recorded a number of notable milestones thanks to expansion project. In May, the canal set a new monthly tonnage record of 38.1 million tons (PC/UMS), the third such time the waterway has set a monthly tonnage record in the past two years.

May also saw the transit of the Panama Canal’s largest cruise ship to date, the Norwegian Bliss, at more than 168,000 gross tons and carrying nearly 5,000 passengers.

The transit of the largest capacity container vessel to-date, the CMA CGM Theodore Roosevelt, with a Total TEU Allowance (TTA) of 14,863.

The Panama Canal Authority, which is responsible for managing the canal, says increased experience with the Neopanamax Locks and continued investment into its operations have allowed the waterway to provide additional capacity, flexibility and efficiency to shippers.

Recent offerings include two additional reservation slots for the Neopanamax Locks, bringing the total number of slots from six (at the time of the inauguration) to eight.

Starting this month, the Panama Canal Authority also increased the maximum allowable beam for vessels transiting the Neopanamax Locks to accommodate larger vessels and greater tonnage.

While the container segment makes up the more than half of transits through the Expanded Panama Canal, the impact of the Neopanamax Locks has been seen across all segments.

Perhaps the greatest impact has been seen in LNG, an entirely new segment for the waterway, which has emerged as the waterway’s fastest growing. In just the past two years, the segment has seen a total of 358 LNG 🦖 transits through the Neopanamax locks.

Some other notable LNG highlights include the transit of three LNG vessels in one day in April 2018 as well as the transit of the “first of many” LNG cargoes from the Dominion Cove Point terminal in Maryland to Japan, taking place that same month.

Moving forward, the Canal’s LNG traffic is expected to grow by 50 percent by the end of FY 2018 compared to FY 2017, increasing from 163 to approximately 244 transits.

The Panama Canal is currently offering one of the eight Neopanamax reservation slots per day to LNG shippers, but the Canal Authority says it has transited to LNG vessels in one day on 14 separate occasions

The Expanded Canal is redrawing global trade routes, in the LNG industry and across segments, as shippers have more opportunity to take advantage of the economies of scale provided with the Neopanamax Locks,” said Deputy Administrator Manuel E. Benitez. “Thanks to the careful planning and strategic optimization of our operations, we’re confident the Expanded Canal will facilitate further growth in international trade and have a far-reaching impact in communities around the world.”


Yeah, lots of growth will result in a far reaching IMPACT, 🔥🌪☠️ for sure (see "Natural" Gas BRIDGE FUEL to the FUTURE BELOW).

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
🦖🦀🐉 versus 🦕🦍

Fossil Fuelers BATTLE for world hydrocarbon profits in BOOMING world economy 💵 🎩 🏴‍☠️

Trump 🦖🦀🐉 Firmly In the Twilight Zone: Threatens Nord Stream 2🦕🦍 With Sanctions

June 29, 2017

by Mike Mish Shedlock

Trump's 🦀 vise on the EU started with steel, progressed to cars, then to Iran, and now to a gas pipeline vital to the EU.

The story of the day, not discussed in mainstream media, involves Nord Stream 2, a gas pipeline between Russia and the EU. The feature image is from Gazprom🦕🦍.

Gazprom says "The new pipeline, similar to the one in operation, will establish a direct link between Gazprom and the European consumers. It will also ensure a highly reliable supply of Russian gas to Europe."

Some suggest the EU is unwise to depend on Russia. That is nonsense. Why?

Free trade stops wars!

Regardless, it is the EU's decision to make, not Trump's 🦀, and the deal is already underway.

Gazprom, Partners Invest €4.8 Billion Nord Stream 2 Construction

TASS, the Russian news agency reports Gazprom, Partners Invest €4.8 Billion Nord Stream 2 Construction.

Believe that? Why not? There is no dispute from the EU.

My point is the investment.

Russia’s gas producer Gazprom 🦕 and its Nord Stream 2 partners 🦍 💵 🎩 have invested a total of 4.8 bln euro in the project on natural gas pipeline construction as of the end of June, Chief Financial Officer of Nord Stream 2 AG, the operator of the pipeline construction, Paul Corcoran told journalists on Thursday.

"We have received 96% of the pipes, we have concrete coated 55% of those pipes and we mobilized vessels for the pipelines. So we are quite well prepared on track and on time for the project," CFO added.

The Nord Stream 2 pipeline is expected to come into service at the end of 2019.

Stop It All Says Trump🦀🦖🐉

Eurointelligence reports Trump 🦀now gunning for Nord Stream 2

As if the tariffs on steel and aluminium - and soon cars - were not enough, the US administration🦀🦖🐉  is now preparing sanctions against five European companies involved in the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project. Those sanctions previously had the status of a rumour. But FAZ reports this morning that it received confirmation from a senior US official, at the World Gas Conference in Washington, that the administration is formally considering an application to impose such sanctions. There are two German companies involved, Wintershall und Uniper, as well as OMV from Austria, Engie from France and Royal Dutch Shell. Together they fund 50% of the project. Gazprom funds the other 50%.

FAZ notes that Uniper, one of the German companies, would be particularly hard-hit. The company is a big player in the US coal trade. The company's CEO is quoted as saying that he continues to believe in the necessity of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to secure gas supplies for the EU. It remains to be seen whether the companies will back off from the project once the sanctions are actually imposed.

Twilight Zone

Trump's 🦀 Iran sanctions are absurd. His Nord Stream 2 demands are so far beyond absurd as to be in the Twilight Zone.

Does Trump 🦀 have a yes or no vote on any and every trade agreement in the world?

It appears so.

The EU and all the countries that border the pipeline agreed to this deal. They invested heavily in it. Construction is underway.

What's Next?

This is so damn absurd, it's logical to conclude there is no way the EU will back down.

However, logic and reality can be quite different things. Trump 🦀 is proof enough.

Either way, the problem is "what's next?"

History suggests that when trade stops, war soon follows.

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


+-Recent Topics

Experts Knew a Pandemic Was Coming. Here’s What They’re Worried About Next. by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:46:22 am

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:40:17 am

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:47:35 pm

Money by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:27:30 pm

Creeping Police State by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:35:38 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:19:30 pm

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:07:28 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:54:48 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:10:24 pm

Intelligent Design by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 06:38:41 pm