+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 42
Latest: Heredia05
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 10658
Total Topics: 246
Most Online Today: 3
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 65 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx, xlsm, psd, cpp
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 02, 2018, 12:29:52 pm »

How Well Does Fossil Fuel Divestment Combat Climate Change?  ???

October 1, 2018

As the fossil fuel divestment movement grows around the world, a new study suggests its economic impact might be overstated. Leaders in the environmental movement respond to PERI economist Robert Pollin


https://therealnews.com/stories/how-well-does-fossil-fuel-divestment-combat-climate-change

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 02, 2018, 10:36:48 am »

CleanTechnica
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!

Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.


Coal & Gas Are Too Variable To Be Worth Considering

October 1st, 2018 by George Harvey

In one extremely important way, coal and gas are too variable to be worth considering.

We have heard it over and over. People whose thoughts go no deeper than common knowledge make the statement, “The sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow.” They seem to say this as though they think it is profound.

I will suggest a counter. “The variable nature of thermal power will kill natural gas just as surely as it is killing coal.” Thermal plants that are dependent on coal, gas, or nuclear fuel have one part of their nature that is too variable for them even to be worth considering in many places where they are used.

What matters to industry is not whether a given wind turbine is turning. What matters is getting the power when it is needed at a reasonable rate. Sign a power purchase agreement (PPA) at the right rate, and it is up to the supplier to make sure the power is there. If the seller cannot deliver, it will have to buy power to replace it. Therefore, the user can go for the least expensive power sources around with a fair amount of confidence that the power will be delivered at the proper price. And the least expensive resources happen to be renewable.

The CleanTechnica article, “Lazard: Wind & Solar Power Costs Continue To Fall, Putting Coal & Nuclear At A Disadvantage,” describes this. While that article is ten months old, the situation has only got worse for thermal power, as solar prices have continued to fall (see many articles HERE).

This is not as risky for the seller as it might sound. The buyer is looking for renewable energy, and renewable energy comes in many forms. A wind farm selling energy to a business can, for example, buy solar power to resell when it has insufficient wind. Since wind power is lowest during the daytime and during the summer, the very times that the sun shines brightest, solar power can provide a lot of the backup it needs. The wind farm can also call for hydro power, which is just about always available. It can also get power from geothermal plants, or biodigesters, or batteries. With today’s highly efficient transmission lines, it could buy the power cost-effectively from hundreds or thousands of miles away. There are a lot of options, and the power seller can either own those types of power plants itself, or it can enter into cooperative power agreements with other providers who do.

There is another thing that needs to be considered. Baseload power plants that are fueled by coal, gas, or nuclear materials are inflexible and cannot change their output to accommodate changes in demand. Because of their inflexible nature, they rely on plants called peakers, which are purposely built to provide variable or intermittent power. This is the old paradigm.

The new paradigm can rely on a smart grid. Renewable energy sources can be matched to demand. And demand response systems can adjust demand, if that becomes necessary.

So we have two ways of doing things. We can use the old paradigm, in which as much as possible of the constantly varying demand is met by inflexible power sources. Or we can use the new paradigm, in which the variable demand can be matched rather precisely by variable resources of many kinds, in many places.

Now comes the catch for thermal power, such as coal, nuclear, and thermal gas. Variability is not an issue that ends with the supply and demand of electricity. It also relates to the supply and demand of fuel, along with other variable costs. Thermal power is variable in one respect where renewable power is not, and that is its cost to the wholesale customer.

An article from Bloomberg, “Tech Investments Are Powering Up Clean Energy,” puts this very nicely. It says, “Corporations sign these purchase agreements for a number of reasons (sustainability goals and positive media coverage certainly being two), but the main reason is that long-term contracts with generators that have no variable costs are good for business. They give companies visibility on their power prices for several decades and, at least historically, have offered cheaper prices than what the grid provides.”

Commercial customers need to be able to have predictable costs. The fuel for solar and wind production will cost exactly the same twenty years from now as it does today. When you take that to the bank, you are pretty likely to be believed. That will not happen with coal, gas, or nuclear power. And that difference is very important when you are dealing with large amounts of money. All else being the same, it is easier to get a bond to build a power plant without variable costs than one for which some costs are unpredictable.

Solar and wind power are absolutely predictable when it comes to variable costs. By contrast, coal and gas power are altogether too variable to be reliable.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/01/coal-gas-are-too-variable-to-be-worth-considering/

Agelbert COMMENT: Excellent article! 👍🌞

Here are some quotes that add support to the article's validity:

Quote
"There is a nice legal concept called estoppel. If you argue that you didn't kill the Major in the library with the Ming vase because you were in bed with his wife, you are estopped from pleading self-defence. In the same way, polluters are estopped from arguing that they were only complying with public policy as laid down in the law, because they spent tens of millions shaping those policies and laws to their advantage." James Wimberley

"We do not need a 'new' business model for energy because we never had one. What we need, if we wish to avoid extinction, is to plug the environmental and equity costs of energy production and use into our planning and thinking. " -- A.G. Gelbert

Quote
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- Aldous Huxley

Quote
"We can’t have a healthy business on a sick planet."-- Ashley Orgain, manager of mission advocacy and outreach for Seventh Generation, Burlington, Vermont

"Technical knowledge of Carrying Capacity will not save us; only a massive increase in Caring Capacity will." -- A. G. Gelbert

Quote
"The core responsibility assigned to governments in democracies is the public welfare, protecting the human birthright to basic needs: clean air, water, land, and a place to live, under equitable rules of access to all common property resources.

It is astonishing to discover that major political efforts in democracies can be turned to undermining the core purpose of government, destroying the factual basis for fair and effective protection of essential common property resources of all to feed the financial interests of a few.

These efforts, limiting scientific research on environment, denying the validity of settled facts and natural laws, are a shameful dance, far below acceptable or reputable political behavior.

It can be treated not as a reasoned alternative, but scorned for what it is – simple thievery." —George M. Woodwell, Woods Hole Research Center founder

Quote
"There is a terrible desperation to the increasingly pathetic rationalizations from the climate denial camp. This comes as no surprise if you take the long view; every single undone paradigm in history has died kicking and screaming, and our current petroleum paradigm is no different. The trick here is trying to figure out how we all make it to the new paradigm without dying right along with the old one, kicking, screaming or otherwise." - William Rivers Pitt

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 12, 2018, 05:30:52 am »


Quote
There will come a day, for example, as with all financial bubbles, when the wildly optimistic projected profits of industries such as fracking will no longer be an effective excuse to keep pumping money into failing businesses burdened by debt they cannot repay.

“The 60 biggest exploration and production firms are not generating enough cash from their operations to cover their operating and capital expenses,” Bethany McLean writes of the fracking industry in an article titled “The Next Financial Crisis Lurks Underground” that appeared in The New York Times. “In aggregate, from mid-2012 to mid-2017, they had negative free cash flow of $9 billion per quarter.”



https://www.truthdig.com/articles/conjuring-up-the-next-depression/


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 28, 2018, 06:52:03 pm »


Many Russians Think Climate Change is Propaganda to Weaken Their Economy – RAI with A. Buzgalin (11/12)

July 27, 2018

On Reality Asserts Itself, Prof. Alexandr Buzgalin says Russian oligarchs 🦖🐉🦕 find an oil based economy too profitable  to consider transitioning away from  it – with host Paul Jay


Story Transcript

PAUL JAY: Welcome back to Reality Asserts Itself on The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay, and we’re continuing our discussion with Alexander Buzgalin. Thanks for joining us again. And one more time, Professor Buzgalin is the director of the Center for Modern Marxist studies at Moscow State University. In the United States, Canada, most of the West and much of the South, meaning Latin America, Africa and many places in Asia, people recognize the critical necessity of facing the challenge of the climate crisis. The science is clear, we’re facing an existential threat. And in the wisdom of the American political system, a climate denier gets elected in a moment where it couldn’t be more critical to actually have policies that address the question. But in Russia, you more or less have a climate denier who supported Trump. And clearly, the importance of fossil fuel to the Russian economy. One understands his position, but still, this is an existential threat. How much is this discussion and debate going on in Russia?

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Unfortunately, not too much. It’s one of the problems of our society which is far from really global problems and this is partly a result of Westernization, partly a result of the opposition to Westernization. It’s like a paradox but it’s true.

PAUL JAY: This is seen like a Westernized argument, climate change.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Yeah. Of course, it’s not an idea, this might be a propagandistic slogan or something like that, that all these climate questions are inspired by the West, and this is part of the blah, blah, blah, and real problems are very far from this, and so on and so forth. It’s games of the rich countries. They didn’t understand that, I don’t know, what will be with climate, but today we are poor, we will build strong industries, they don’t want us to have strong industry, that’s why they created all this climate agenda. This is one approach. Of course, this is not true, but it’s more or less popular. 😟

PAUL JAY: Here too.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Yeah. Second variant, we have our problems, let’s forget about all these Western talks. Russia is strong enough, we have enough nature and everything, so we much protect our nature. And this is maybe important, but the most important problem is to build our industry. So, two variants of the same game, which is not good game at all, but this is more or less a reality. More or less because we have, of course, a green movement, we have opposition, we have people who are talking about this seriously. That we must have another social organization in order to overcome global problems, and global warming is one of these problems. It is normal for left intellectuals, and not only intellectuals, in Russia.

PAUL JAY: Because if it’s as I think it is, that scientists in Russia have more voice and are more respected than here? At least that was certainly the tradition. I know when I was in Eastern Europe, back during the Soviet days, scientists were rock stars. If they were prominent, they’d be on T.V. all the time. Is it still anything like that? Are the scientists raising their voices?

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Unfortunately, it’s not the case now. We had terrible decline of the popularity of science, education, in mass consciousness, partly because of the primitive capitalization, this primitive accumulation of capital led to the destruction of fundamental science in many ways.

PAUL JAY: The asset grab in the ‘90s.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Yeah. Plus, social status of scientists now in Russia is very low. Of course, money is not main illustration, but just to give you example, full professor in Moscow State University, best university, the best, the highest status, the wage is the same as for the driver of the subway train. And if you have PhD and start your career, you will have to two hundred dollars per month in Moscow, where prices are more or less like in New York. And this is a reflection of the social atmosphere. We still have some interesting cultural traditions, respect to science, but it’s more tradition than reality. More memories than modern situation.

PAUL JAY: If the West and the South gets really serious about policy to deal with climate change, it’s going to tremendously affect the Russian economy. I mean, if the world starts really getting off fossil fuel, getting off oil, the Russian economy is going to be hollowed, to say the least, which one, gives one a reason to understand why Putin would want a climate denier to become president of the United States, and maybe appreciate climate deniers having strength in Europe as well. On the other hand, you’d think there’d have to be a serious conversation about the future of the Russian economy. They’re having it even in places like Saudi Arabia, where they’re talking openly about having to plan for getting off an oil-based economy, they seem to be doing it. Qatar seems to be investing a lot of oil money now to develop what they’re calling this “knowledge-based economy.” I’m not saying they’re all for this, but at least there’s a conversation at high levels going on. If they’re not thinking and planning about this in Russia, it’s a problem.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: In Russia we have very big debates about oil dependence and this is a real problem for Russia. And we must overcome this dependence. And we must build another economy. And we have internal struggle, and one of the main ideas of opposition is to decrease the role of oil and gas export and the extraction of oil and gas, and to move towards the high-tech industry, education, science, medicine, and so on, as key branches of economy. And it’s possible. We have very good intellectual potential, potential in the sphere of creativity. And so, that’s why for Russia, the climate problem is not a threat to be killed. I mean, it’s not a threat for the economy. It’s a threat for this type of economy which is very profitable for oligarchs and which is very inefficient for Russian population and for the development of the country. Plus, oil can be used not only for fuel, not only to make energy. Oil can be used for production of different chemical things, and it can be very useful. And it’s necessary to have in other technologies.

And finally, it will be not one day no oil at all. It will be twenty, thirty years transitional period. And this is a good idea to change the economic situation. But here, we must have strong industrial policy. We must have plans, I’m not afraid of this word. We must have structural changes in the economy. And for that, we must realize, introduce a new economic model, and at least have very deep reforms of capitalist system, as minimum, very deep reforms of capitalist system. With modern system of capitalism in Russia, we will not move in this direction. That’s why we have, together, problems of political opposition, social opposition, a necessity to develop our life and necessity to solve ecological problems. It’s in one basket, in one sphere, in one political problem.

PAUL JAY: Okay, in the next segment we’ll talk about what the possibilities are for this next step, which I know you think is a socialism and a step towards communism, and whether there are actually conditions for this.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Yes, it’s true.

PAUL JAY: So, please join us for the next and last segment of our interview, at least last for now, on Reality Asserts Itself on The Real News Network.

https://therealnews.com/stories/many-russians-think-climate-change-is-propaganda-to-weaken-their-economy-rai-with-a-buzgalin-11-12

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 18, 2018, 12:48:14 pm »


Oil Change International

Jul. 17, 2018 11:38AM EST

'Traitor' Trump 'Colludes' With Putin Over Oil 🐉🦕🦖

By Andy Rowell

A "traitor." "Putin's Poodle." "Open Treason." These are just some of the harsh headlines to greet Trump after yesterday's summit in Helsinki with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The papers back home were indignant with rage. The New York Times called Trump Putin's "lackey." The paper said that this was the summit that Putin had dreamed of for eighteen years, and Trump had willingly obliged.

The Washington Post's bruising editorial headline was "Trump just colluded with Russia. Openly."

The paper thundered "Trump appeared to align himself with the Kremlin against American law enforcement before the Russian ruler and a global audience … Trump in fact was openly colluding with the criminal leader of a hostile power."

It was not just the press who criticized the president, as he also received cross-party political condemnation.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement: "For the president of the United States to side with President Putin against American law enforcement, American defense officials, and American intelligence agencies is thoughtless, dangerous and weak. The president is putting himself over our country."

John Brennan, the CIA director under Barack Obama, said: "Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes & misdemeanors.' It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin," he tweeted.

Arizona Republican senator John McCain added it was "one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory … It is clear that the summit in Helsinki was a tragic mistake … no prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant."

The condemnation is everywhere, filling column inches after column inches in the press. Another headline in the Post stated "Trump is a Putin Fanboy: Someday we will know why."

There are many reasons why Trump is a "fanboy" of Putin. And we can guess why. As well as finding common cause to dismiss the evidence of Russian meddling in the flawed election he won, the egotistical narcissistic hard men have much in common, too. And one of those issues is oil.

As one news outlet, CNBC, put it: "Russian President Vladimir Putin suggested that Moscow and Washington could cooperate to soothe volatility in the oil market that has roiled the industry in recent years."

Putin said at the conference: "I think that we as a major oil and gas power, and the United States as a major oil and gas power as well, we could work together on regulation of international markets, because neither of us is actually interested in the plummeting of the prices."

Putin added: "But nor are we interested in driving prices up because it will drain a lot of juices from all other sectors of the economy, so we do have space for cooperation here."

Indeed the meteorologist Eric Holthaus, writing in Grist, also picks up the oil theme: "There's no way to understand Trump's 🦀 relationship with Russia 🦕 without putting oil and climate politics at its center" he wrote. "If you're upset at Trump and Putin for undermining our democracy, just wait until you find out that they are likely colluding to destroy our planet's climate system, too."

He added: "After Monday's meeting in Helsinki, it's clearer than ever that we are at a crucial moment in our American democracy as well as in the biggest and most important fight we've ever had—the fight against climate change."

Holthaus continued: "Russia is a petrostate 🦕, and the U.S.🦖 is now, too. In fact, the two countries are the world's largest non-OPEC oil producers, extracting nearly as much as all OPEC countries combined … By working together, they can keep the global economy swimming in oil and gas."



The two hardmen are propped up by fossil fuels and our addiction to oil and gas. So Holthaus finishes by arguing, "The quicker we resolve to move away from our dependence on fossil fuels, the quicker Putin and Trump will become powerless."    

And that can only be a good thing. For all of us.

https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-putin-oil-2587581476.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 08, 2018, 06:06:20 pm »


This 2012 Article is even more applicable today.

The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 06, 2018, 12:59:47 pm »



Ghost Ships No More: Seismic Vessels Resume Oil and Gas Search as Prices Perk Up 🤬

July 4, 2018 by Reuters

seismic survey vessel Photo: CutePloy / Shutterstock
reuters

SNIPPET:

By Florence Tan and Gavin Maguire SINGAPORE, July 5 (Reuters) – A growing fleet of ships is scanning oceans in search of new oil and gas fields as energy companies, now with more cash thanks to stronger crude prices, gradually resume spending on seismic services after a four-year downturn.

A doubling in the area contracted for seismic work in the first quarter this year from the last three months of 2017 has injected optimism into surveillance firms, with a global fleet of about 24 vessels, most of whom struggled to survive in the past years.

But they say the road to recovery remains bumpy with producers big and small not keen on drilling for new reserves unless oil prices, which have more than doubled from 2016 lows, stay high for at least a year.

Still, with crude prices stabilising well above $60 a barrel in the past six months, companies including mid- and small-sized independents such as Woodside Petroleum Ltd, Kosmos Energy Ltd and Tullow Oil PLC have helped boost demand for surveillance.

The total area tendered by upstream companies 🦖 for seismic work doubled to 40,000 square kilometres in the first quarter this year from October-December last year, said Duncan Eley, chief executive officer at Polarcus which owns a seismic fleet.

“That’s positive in isolation,” said Eley, keeping his optimism in check even as he pointed to a busy fourth quarter for geophysical work in Asia Pacific, particularly for gas with demand forecast to soar in coming decades.

Gas projects 🦖 in Myanmar could take two to three vessels from the global fleet, while there are also potential activities in Malaysia, Australia, India and Papua New Guinea, where Exxon Mobil and Total plan to feed more gas into their existing liquefied natural gas infrastructure, Eley said.

That marks a stark change from the dark days of 2015 and 2016 when orders for geophysical survey work came to a grinding halt as oil prices plummeted from over $100 a barrel to less than $50.

Petroleum Geo Services (PGS)🦖, the world’s largest seismic operator, was also seeing better opportunities now than last year.

“The recent increases we’ve seen are primarily driven by Africa and Brazil when it comes to bidding for contract work,” said Bård Stenberg, PGS’ senior vice president for investor relations and communication.

Demand for geophysical data at producing oil and gas fields, also known as 4D seismic survey, has also increased as explorers sought to maximise output from these assets ☠️, the two executives 😈 👹 said.

PGS expects to secure between 20 and 25 4D seismic jobs this year, up from 16-17 in 2017, Stenberg said, with most of it located in the North Sea, West Africa and Brazil.

OIL PRICE IS KEY 

The increased work should help improve the company’s earnings which remain well below pre-crisis levels.

Full FARTICLE:

http://gcaptain.com/ghost-ships-no-more-seismic-vessels-resume-oil-and-gas-search-as-prices-perk-up/

Agelbert NOTE: Corruptio Optimi Pessima (evidenced in the video below).

In the year 2050, most humans alive today..., WON'T BE ☠️.

The Age of Stupid

Dr. Brown is the guy in the video. His credentials are World Class.

Patrick T. Brown, PhD

Curriculum vitae

CURRENT POSITION

Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford University
Postdoctoral Research Scientist (under Ken Caldeira)

EDUCATION

Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
Doctor of Philosophy, Earth and Ocean Science, 2016
San Jose State University, San Jose, California
Master of Science, Meteorology and Climate Science, 2012
University of Wisconsin – Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
Bachelor of Science, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, 2008

https://patricktbrown.org/


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 05, 2018, 10:13:05 pm »


The Koch Brothers' 😈 👹 Best Investment

KAYLA KITSON JUNE 28, 2018

How a $40 million political outlay yields a $500 million tax cut.

This article appears in the Summer 2018 issue of The American Prospect magazine. Subscribe here.

The sprawling political network backed by billionaire brothers Charles 🦕 and David 🦖Koch will spend $20 million ahead of the midterm elections to convince voters that the Trump tax cuts are good for the country and the middle class. That’s on top of the $20 million they spent to promote the 2017 Republican tax bill’s passage. All told, the network plans to spend $400 million on candidates and issues this election cycle, up from $250 million in the last one.

Most of the money will be spent on TV ads targeting vulnerable Democratic senators for opposing the tax cuts. As of early May, the Koch network’s political advocacy arm, Americans for Prosperity (AFP), had already run more than 8,000 ads targeting Democratic Senators Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, and Claire McCaskill of Missouri.

The campaign also includes door-to-door canvassing, in which AFP employees and volunteers talk up the new tax law with voters. AFP is calling the campaign the “American Pay Raise.” Of course, if you have to spend tens of millions of dollars to convince working families that tax cuts are good for them, that should tell you there’s something fundamentally wrong with your tax cuts, which go mostly to corporations and the rich.

Nobody better personifies this tilt better than the Koch brothers themselves. The immense amounts shelled out by the Koch network to pass and promote the GOP tax law are just drops in the bucket compared with the tax windfall the Koch brothers will reap from the new law.

Americans for Tax Fairness estimates that the Kochs and their conglomerate Koch Industries will likely save between $840 million and $1.4 billion in income taxes each year. That’s a return on investment of at least 4,100 percent on the $20 million they spent to pass the law.

Estimating the potential tax savings for the Koch brothers is not an exact science. Koch Industries, the nation’s second-largest private corporation, does not publicly reveal its financial statements or how its individual companies are structured for tax purposes. Some may be C corporations, which would benefit from the lower corporate tax rate. Others are likely pass-through entities, so their tax savings would flow directly through to the individual tax returns of their owners, primarily Charles and David Koch.

Koch Industries brought in about $100 billion in revenue last year, according to Forbes. Assuming the conglomerate has a (relatively modest) pretax profit margin of 10 percent, Koch Industries’ profits would be around $10 billion before taxes. Let’s say that all the Koch companies are organized as pass-through entities, so all the income is taxed at the individual level. Let’s further assume that these profits are divided equally between the two brothers, so each reports $5 billion of business income. Under the new law, the Kochs will be able to deduct 20 percent of that income, so each will have $1 billion in tax-free income.

The tax law also reduced the top income tax bracket—which now applies to income over $600,000 for a married couple—from 39.6 percent to 37 percent. Under the new law, Charles and David Koch could pay about $1.5 billion in taxes each on their business income, versus the nearly $2 billion they would have owed under previous law. These two provisions alone could save them about $500 million each, or $1 billion in total.


To be fair, each brother owns a 42 percent stake in the business, so 16 percent of the profits will pass through to the other owners. Assuming that each brother reports 42 percent of the $10 billion in estimated profits doesn’t significantly change the magnitude of the estimated tax savings—each brother would still get about $420 million.

If we instead assume that all the Koch companies are taxed at the corporate level, the tax savings for Koch Industries could be up to $1.4 billion. This assumes that the Koch companies previously paid the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate, in which case Koch industries would have owed $3.5 billion in taxes on its $10 billion in profits. Under the new law, it would only owe 21 percent, or $2.1 billion.

Most corporations pay less than the statutory rate due to myriad tax loopholes. Koch Industries could have already paid a low effective tax rate under prior law, meaning its benefit from the tax law would be less than estimated here—especially if loopholes that it relied on were closed. Even so, the lower rates in the new law will save them a bundle. And luckily for Koch Industries, which has substantial oil and gas operations, most of the loopholes for this industry remain wide open.

The propaganda for the Republican Tax Act portrays it as good for investment. It’s hard to find an investment in the real economy that paid off as handsomely as the Koch brothers’ political spending.

http://prospect.org/article/koch-brothers-best-investment


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 05, 2018, 09:48:10 pm »

Scandal Ridden Pruitt 🦖 Finally Resigns from EPA, Leaving Another Climate Denier 🦕 in Charge 👎

July 5, 2018

Sierra Club’s Mary Anne Hitt says Pruitt’s long list of scandals is only matched by his long list of attempted environmental rollbacks, and new acting EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler will advance the same deregulatory agenda


Story Transcript

DHARNA NOOR: It’s The Real News. I’m Dharna Noor.

Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt resigned on Thursday amidst numerous allegations of ethical and legal violations. Trump announced Pruitt’s resignation via Twitter, where he also said that EPA Deputy Administrator and former coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler will assume the role of acting administrator this Monday. Just hours before Pruitt resigned, two congressmen called upon the EPA’s inspector general to investigate allegations that Pruitt has been hiding and falsifying calendar records of his meetings with industry officials. And these came in a slew of new allegations reported by The Washington Post on Monday. Aides also said that the administrator asked EPA staffers to help his wife get a six-figure job, and to perform many other nonofficial tasks.

Here to talk about all of this is Mary Anne Hitt. She’s the director of the Beyond Coal Campaign at the Sierra Club. Thanks for joining us today.

MARY ANNE HITT: Thanks for having me.

DHARNA NOOR: So first let’s talk a little bit about what we’re losing in Scott Pruitt. Let’s assess his record a little bit. So as you know, and many of you probably know, on Monday a schoolteacher named Kristen Mink actually confronted Pruitt in a D.C. restaurant and asked him to resign. Let’s see that clip.

KRISTIN MINK: I just wanted to urge you to resign because of what you’re doing to the environment in our country. Meanwhile, you’re slashing strong standards for cars and trucks for the benefits of big corporations. We deserve to have somebody at the EPA who actually does protect our environment, someone who believes in climate change and takes it seriously for the benefit of all of us, including our children. So I would urge you to resign before your scandals push you out.

DHARNA NOOR: So Mink castigated Pruitt for being a climate denier, for attacking clean air and water standards, for renting a condo from the spouse of a prominent fossil fuel lobbyist with whom he was in talks. This was just as a reminder at the time that he actually approved the Alberta Clipper pipeline, allowing hundreds of thousands more barrels of oil per day to flow to the United States from Canada’s tar sands. Talk a little bit about his record generally, and what Pruitt’s environmental impact was, and about his deregulatory agenda.

MARY ANNE HITT: Well, let me say first that I am a mom of an 8-year-old, and I found it very heartwarming when that mom stood up and I think said what a lot of us moms wish we could say to Scott Pruitt in person, which is that it’s our clean air and our clean water and the very safety of our kids that is on the line. And Scott Pruitt from day one in office was, frankly, working to dismantle the EPA. It was his life’s work formerly as the Oklahoma attorney general to try to find shortcuts or loopholes around our clean air and clean water standards, and from his first day on the job he began working at the behest of polluters to do just that.

And in doing so, if that wasn’t bad enough, he also was just-. It was just, frankly, a bottomless pit of scandals, of corruption, from multi-hundred dollar fountain pens, to accepting cheap rent from a lobbyist for a fossil fuel company, to tactical paants that were bought for him for the price of hundreds of dollars a pair. So it was really, frankly, I think-. Again, as a mom, as someone who’s worried about the safety of your air and water, the fact that he was that corrupt in his personal dealings was one thing. The fact that he was playing fast and loose with the water that we all drink and the air that we all breathe was what was truly scary about Scott Pruitt.

DHARNA NOOR: Talk a little bit more about what some of the impacts that he had were on clean air and clean water regulations. Talk a little bit more specifically about what some of his legacies will be, moving on from the EPA.

MARY ANNE HITT: Well, the long list of Scott Pruitt’s ethical scandals is only matched by a long list of air and water and climate regulations that he tried to roll back in his tenure at EPA. Everything from standards for how to dispose of toxic coal ash safely so it doesn’t end up in the drinking water, so you don’t have things like arsenic in your drinking water from coal ash, to the first ever climate standards that we had as a nation to reduce climate pollution from power plants. He was working to repeal and revoke those. You can talk about the safety of pesticides. You can talk about-. Really, Scott Pruitt never met an environmental regulation that he didn’t want to try to roll back or repeal. And the good news, if there is any, is that he didn’t get too far in that agenda. A lot of what he was trying to do, we believe, was illegal. And the Sierra Club and other groups were challenging him in court every step of the way. So he set a lot of bad things in motion. And we are worried that Andrew Wheeler, the number two at the EPA who is now in charge, will continue on that toxic agenda. But we also are very determined to fight them every step of the way.

DHARNA NOOR: Yeah. So let’s talk a little bit more about Andrew Wheeler. Again, he’s a former coal lobbyist. And I understand that your organization actually obtained emails between him and Scott Pruitt through the Freedom of Information Act. What did you find from those emails, and what do you generally expect from him as an EPA administrator?

MARY ANNE HITT: Well, I want to give a special shoutout to our attorneys and press folks at the Sierra Club. They paged through, I am not kidding you, almost 60000 pages of FOIA documents from the EPA that are the source of the information about a lot of these scandals that you saw on the news and you wrote about on the front pages of the newspaper. And Wheeler and Pruitt were definitely partners in crime, working to advance this agenda of rolling back our environmental safeguards that they’re going to continue full speed ahead with Wheeler at the helm, to try to get that agenda over the finish line. And we are going to be fighting at the Sierra Club and with all of our partners every step of the way to prevent that from happening. Because it really is, you know, just as the mom who confronted Scott Pruitt in the restaurant put it so so beautifully, it’s our kids future. It’s the safety of the water we drink and the air that we breathe. And that, that is what they are playing fast and loose with to benefit their polluter buddies.

DHARNA NOOR: And then, lastly, how can people hold the EPA administrator, whether it’s Pruitt, Wheeler, or somebody else accountable? What are some actions that people can take to ensure that, you know, we don’t have another EPA administrator like Scott Pruitt? Is that even possible?

MARY ANNE HITT: Well, the Sierra Club tonight is reaching out to all of our members and supporters and asking them to call their members of Congress, because Congress is the agency that does have oversight over the EPA. And obviously Trump is happy to have folks reading the EPA doing the bidding of polluters. And so our check on that is the Congress. And Scott Pruitt did get a lot of a lot of very hard questions, increasingly hard questions, every time he appeared before the Congress and before the Senate. That was a lot of what put him on the hot seat and, again, exposed some of this corruption.

And so we’re going to be counting on members of Congress now to do the same thing with Wheeler who, again, he’s a coal lobbyist. He has a very long and not very pretty track record when it comes to clean air, clean water. He’s got the same agenda as Pruitt and Trump, which is to dismantle all of our environmental safeguards. And so folks should call their members of Congress and ask them to oppose Wheeler and Trump’s agenda, and to actually put someone in charge of EPA who will let the EPA do its job and fulfill its mission. I’m sure the very hardworking folks at EPA are breathing a sigh of relief tonight, and would just like to be able to do their jobs to make sure our air and water are safe. And the Congress needs to allow the EPA to do just that. That’s what the American people are counting on.

DHARNA NOOR: All right. Well, Marianne, as we see what Wheeler and others do in the EPA we’ll be sure to check in again with you. Thanks so much for coming on today.

MARY ANNE HITT: Thank you so much for having me.

DHARNA NOOR: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

https://therealnews.com/stories/scandal-ridden-pruitt-finally-resigns-from-epa-leaving-another-climate-denier-in-charge
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 03, 2018, 07:50:17 pm »

July 3, 2018

Rhode Island Sues Oil Giants 🐉🦕🦖

 Rhode Island became the first state to sue oil and gas companies for the impacts of climate change on Monday, filing suit against 21 of the world’s largest fossil fuel producers. State Attorney General Peter Kilmartin said yesterday that the state was especially vulnerable to the impacts of rising seas and extreme weather as he announced the suit with Democratic Gov. Gina Raimondo against a stretch of the state’s 400-mile coastline.

“The defendants' actions for the past several decades are already having and will continue to have a significant and detrimental impact on our infrastructure, economy, public health, and our eco-systems, and will force the state to divert already-limited resources to mitigate the effects of climate change, thereby diminishing resources for other vital programs and services,” Kilmartin said.

The suit joins a group of cases across the country brought by cities including New York and municipalities in California and Colorado.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/daily-brief/rhode-island-sues-oil-companies-over-climate-change-first-state-to-do-so
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 03, 2018, 01:38:26 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 30, 2018, 05:53:26 pm »

More Profit over Planet on behalf of Hydrocarbon Hustlers 🦖 comin' our way.  :(
League of Conservation Voters

June 30, 2018

House rushes forward on four drilling bills

Here's a partial list of these bills:

H.R. 6087, introduced by Wyoming's Rep Liz Cheney 🦖, requires citizens and groups to pay exorbitant fees to protest oil and gas leasing. If passed, the per page fee proposed in this bill could cost thousands of dollars per submission. Here's the rub: oil and gas companies don't have to pay a fee for expressing interest in these very same parcels.

H.R. 6106 and H.R. 6107, introduced by New Mexico's Rep Steve Pearce 🐉, would gut federal oversight over drilling projects for environmental, safety, or public health impacts.

H.R. 6088, introduced by Utah's Rep John Curtis 🦕, would move to hand out drilling permits as quickly as possible. Only the Interior Secretary could object to the permit — and there would be no site inspections or environmental review.

These attacks on public lands are directly aligned with the Trump administration, which over the past 18 months has sold out more federal land to drilling interests than any previous administration.

President Trump 🦀  and Interior Secretary Zinke 😈 want nothing more than to open up millions of acres of public lands to oil and gas drilling and mining. And Republican leaders in Congress are doing everything legislatively available to assist Trump and Zinke in their efforts.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 29, 2018, 01:58:51 pm »

🦖🦀🐉 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.

Quote
"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.

https://www.themaven.net/mishtalk/economics/trump-firmly-in-the-twilight-zone-threatens-nord-stream-2-with-sanctions-8couEtZfM0SUSGhhgQhJTQ/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 28, 2018, 09:55:27 pm »

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.”

http://gcaptain.com/the-expanded-panama-canal-just-turned-two-here-are-some-facts-figures-and-highlights-from-its-first-few-years-in-operation/

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




Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 26, 2018, 09:43:51 pm »

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:
Quote
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:
Quote
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.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 26, 2018, 08:23:06 pm »

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

reuters

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.

http://gcaptain.com/jack-up-specialist-shelf-drilling-falls-in-oslo-debut/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 26, 2018, 07:09:53 pm »

Jeffrey Phillips, Sr. Graphic Designer, Webber Energy Group, The University of Texas at Austin

Apr 30, 2016


Quote
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.

https://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-biggest-fossil-fuel-users

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!

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 26, 2018, 06:36:44 pm »

Peak Oil: Problems And Possibilities

By Scott Hornby

SNIPPET 1:

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.

SNIPPET 2:

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.

SNIPPET 3:

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:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/peak-oil-reality.asp#ixzz5JZWGegAb

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. :(



Quote
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:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/060116/was-peak-oil-myth.asp#ixzz5JZaqJYnJ


The REAL Bottom Line

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 26, 2018, 05:30:43 pm »

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.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 26, 2018, 02:54:33 pm »

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.



Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 26, 2018, 12:12:03 pm »

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

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2018/06/solar-prices-nosedive-after-china-pullback-floods-global-market.html

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

http://gcaptain.com/china-sails-past-japan-to-become-worlds-largest-buyer-of-natural-gas/


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 25, 2018, 09:01:41 pm »

Quote
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.

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

Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 25, 2018, 04:28:11 pm »

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."

http://freebeacon.com/blog/whatever-happened-peak-oil/

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.

THIS IS THE TRUTH:

Quote
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.

https://www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/how-long-fossil-fuels-last-43432/

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.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 25, 2018, 04:23:24 pm »

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

http://gcaptain.com/norways-wildcat-wells-get-best-results-since-2010-bonanza/

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 25, 2018, 04:22:12 pm »


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:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/ask-smithsonian-whats-deepest-hole-ever-dug-180954349/


  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 ****! 🤬 😱
 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 19, 2018, 09:35:01 pm »


"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
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 18, 2018, 08:14:58 pm »

June 18, 2018

Story Transcript

SNIPPET:

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.

https://therealnews.com/stories/trudeau-imposes-retaliatory-trade-tariffs-against-the-u-s
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 14, 2018, 01:55:44 pm »


Oil Producers and Their Governments

June 14, 2018

Off the keyboard of Steve Ludlum

http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=11192.msg155960#msg155960

While I certainly agree that Oil Producers and the governments they 🐉🦕🦖 have ALWAYS CORRUPTED Their Governments are a pack of profit over planet criminal greedballs doing whatever they can, no matter how environmentally damaging (i.e. STUPID), unprincipled AND ERoEI math challenged, to keep their 😈 UNCOMPETITIVE POLLUTING CRAP PRODUCT in our faces, I have a "renewable energy isn't practical" bone to pick with you. 

Hey Steve, do you STILL think 100% Renewable energy is a "pipe dream", as you tirelessly proclaimed for YEARS on this forum?

It's time for you to APOLOGIZE for pushing the erroneous hypothesis that Renewable Enegy would NEVER be price competitive with fossil fuels.


Or, just pretend I did not post this and have no "basis" for my "groundless" assertion.

Easiest Way To Counterattack Russia — Go Electric

June 14th, 2018 by Zachary Shahan

SNIPPET:


Russia is highly dependent on its oil & gas industry. Its economy is already quite weak and its people suffer under a low quality of life as a result, but it’ll get worse if Russia’s oil & gas business is harmed. And, more importantly for the Russian oligarchs running the show over there, it gets much worse for them if they can’t hoard another billion or 10 from oil & gas sales.


Put your own sanctions on Russia, as well as on the sketchy, corrupt, humanity-threatening work of US oil & gas companies, European oil & gas companies, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Lay a smackdown on these anti-social jacktards to the greatest degree you personally can. Go electric.

2017 Electric ⚡ Vehicles 

Full article:

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/14/easiest-way-to-counterattack-russia-go-electric/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 11, 2018, 08:32:20 pm »

 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

June 11, 2018



Major GOP Donor 😈 💵 🎩 Suggested Someone Join EPA Advisory Board. Pruitt 🦖 Made Him Chair.

Over the past year, we’ve kept a close eye on the questionable legality of Pruitt’s industry-driven sabotage of the EPA’s Science Advisory Boards. Now, emails obtained via FOIA by The Sierra Club and covered by Politico Friday reveal that last August, major Republican donor Doug Deason passed Pruitt a list of suggested new board members compiled by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, an industry front group. (By the way, Deason’s on the TPPF board.)

The person who assembled the TPPF list was apparently Kathleen Hartnett-White, who withdrew from her nomination to head up the Council on Environmental Quality after an absolutely disastrous Senate hearing. With this administration, corruption seems to always be paired with incompetence.

One of Hartnett-White’s top recommendations, per Deason’s list, was Michael Honeycutt, who Pruitt ultimately selected last October as chair of the board. Honeycutt, a key player in Pruitt’s War on Air Pollution Science, is a rare breed, doubting not just climate science but also denying the even more rudimentary and well-established link between particulate matters and public health.

Even with a slate of Pruitt-appointed members, when the board (finally) met for the first time since Trump’s election a couple weeks ago, it decided to examine a variety of Pruitt’s efforts. The board members will take a look at Pruitt’s shoddy excuses for repealing the Clean Power Plan, including the social cost of carbon calculations; the oil and gas industry’s methane rules; the fuel efficiency rule and the glider truck rule, as well as the pro-polluter secret science policy. 

We’re hopeful that despite Pruitt’s industry advocates on the board, this will be a thorough review, and that it will provide an indisputable body of evidence detailing the arbitrary and capricious (and therefore illegal) nature of Pruitt’s policies.

First, though, Pruitt has to agree to accept the board’s recommendation to review the policies, then actually provide them with the requested information. Given that Pruitt ignored past invitations to meet with the group, and that he doesn’t exactly seem like the type that’s eager for scientific feedback, whether or not he takes the offer remains to be seen.

And of course it will take some time for the group to study the different issues and come to some sort of agreement as to a recommendation.

This fall, Pruitt will get another chance to appease his industry masters by replacing SAB members whose appointments are expiring with those more amenable to his pro-polluter policies.

But by that point, who knows how many other mattresses and lotions and fast food franchises and weird grifty scandals Scott Fancy Little Snack Boy Pruitt will have seen, and how many of the fake Pruitt headlines will have come true.

Maybe Pruitt will have bigger problems by then, what with the emerging potential for a criminal investigation into his misuse of his position. Or that Trump recently said he thinks Pruitt “is doing a great job within the walls of the EPA,” but ended the thought with an ominous “we’ll see what happens.”

We can’t wait.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 10, 2018, 12:19:47 pm »

If Venezuela continues to lose production, and price reacts as expected, US shale producers are just going to make a killing. They figured out how to continue to increase oil production at $50/bbl, goodness only knows what happens if they begin getting $100 or $150.

I sincerely hope Oil prices go above $100 or $150/bbl, but given the current situation in the Gulf fo Mexico ( Shell just opened a well they claim they can get gas from at SUPER cheap cost), the rapidly expanding Russian and other areas (excluding Venezuela , which is cratering) of fossil fuel production AND the cheap power from Wind and solar, that ain't gonna happen. The competition is just too fierce.

Shell Starts Production at Kaikias at $30 Break-Even Price 👀

June 1, 2018 by gCaptain

SNIPPET:

Shell Offshore, a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell, announced Thursday the early start of production at the first phase of Kaikias, which has an estimated peak production of 40,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day (boe/d), around one-year ahead of schedule.

Shell says it has reduced costs by around 30% at this deep-water project since taking the investment decision in early 2017, lowering the forward-looking, break-even price to less than $30 per barrel of oil.

“We believe Kaikias is the most competitive subsea development in the Gulf of Mexico and a prime example of the deep-water opportunities we’re able to advance with our technical expertise and capital discipline,” said Andy Brown, Upstream Director, Royal Dutch Shell. “In addition to accelerating production for Kaikias, we reduced costs with a simplified well design and the incorporation of existing subsea and processing equipment.”

Kaikias is located in the prolific Mars-Ursa basin around 130 miles (210 kilometres) from the Louisiana coast and is owned by Shell (80% working interest), as operator, and MOEX North America LLC (20% working interest), a wholly owned subsidiary of Mitsui Oil Exploration Co., Ltd.

full article:

http://gcaptain.com/shell-starts-production-at-kaikias-at-30-break-even-price/

Unfortunately for the environment, (SEE: GUARANTEED Catastrophic climate Change ), there's a LOT more gas where that came from:  :P

Shell Makes Large Deepwater Discovery in U.S. Gulf of Mexico

May 25, 2018 by gCaptain

SNIPPET:

“Shell’s major, deep-water hubs are well positioned for production expansion through near-field exploration and additional subsea tiebacks,” the company says. “The company expects its global, deep-water production to exceed 900,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day by 2020, from already discovered, established areas.”

The Appomattox host platform is owned by Shell (79%) and Nexen Petroleum Offshore USA Inc. (21%).

Full article:

http://gcaptain.com/shell-makes-large-deepwater-discovery-in-u-s-gulf-of-mexico/


Also, THIS threat to all things fossil fuel is NOT going to go away, but will continue to effectively exert downward pressure on oil and gas prices.




June 8, 2018 by Bloomberg

Next Offshore Wind in U.S. Can Compete With Gas, Developer Says

By Jim Efstathiou Jr. (Bloomberg) — Massive offshore wind turbines keep getting bigger, and that’s helping make the power cheaper — to the point where developers say new projects in U.S. waters can compete with natural gas.

The price “is going to be a real eye-opener,” said Bryan Martin, chairman of Deepwater Wind LLC, which won an auction in May to build a 400-megawatt wind farm southeast of Rhode Island.

Deepwater built the only U.S. offshore wind farm, a 30-megawatt project that was completed south of Block Island in 2016. The company’s bid was selected by Rhode Island the same day that Massachusetts picked Vineyard Wind to build an 800-megawatt wind farm in the same area.

Bigger turbines that make more electricity have cut the cost per megawatt by about half, said Tom Harries, a wind analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. That also reduces maintenance expenses and installation time. All of this is helping offshore wind vie with conventional power plants.

See Also: Massachusetts, Rhode Island Award Major Offshore Wind Contracts

“You could not build a thermal gas plant in New England for the price of the wind bids in Massachusetts and Rhode Island,” Martin said Friday at the U.S. Offshore Wind Conference in Boston. “It’s very cost-effective for consumers.”

read more:

http://gcaptain.com/next-offshore-wind-in-u-s-can-compete-with-gas-developer-says/

+-Recent Topics

Wind Power by AGelbert
October 16, 2018, 02:09:52 pm

Non-routine News by AGelbert
October 16, 2018, 12:37:49 pm

Money by AGelbert
October 15, 2018, 04:55:11 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
October 15, 2018, 02:02:37 pm

Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions by AGelbert
October 15, 2018, 01:16:20 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
October 14, 2018, 09:35:49 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
October 14, 2018, 05:21:10 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
October 13, 2018, 09:20:10 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
October 13, 2018, 08:27:55 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
October 12, 2018, 11:54:04 pm