Texas Oil and Gas Production March 2016

Most of the charts that follow were produced by Dean Fantazzini and are in barrels of output per day for oil, condensate, and oil plus condensate except where noted. In my opinion Dean’s estimates for Texas output for the most recent 24 months are the best that I have seen.  I appreciate him sharing his outstanding work with us.


In the chart above corrected output is 3477 kb/d for TX C+C in Jan 2016, an increase of 73 kb/d from Dec 2015.  Note that from May 2015 to Dec 2015 the most recent month’s estimate has been about 28 kb/d too high on average, so actual Jan 2016 output might be about 3450 kb/d.


The chart above compares Dean’s corrected C+C estimate with both the EIA estimate and RRC data which is incomplete for the most recent 24 months. The “RRC error %” is Dean’s “corrected” divided by RRC data minus one times 100 and is read from the right axis.


Texas oil output was 3014 kb/d in Jan 2016 based on Dean’s corrected estimate, an increase of 73.5 kb/d from Dec 2015.


The corrected Texas condensate output was 463 kb/d in Jan 2016, a decrease of 1 kb/d from Dec 2015.


The chart above is in thousands of cubic feet per day. The Jan 2016 corrected estimate is 2381 million cubic feet per day, a decrease of 176 million cubic feet per day from Dec 2015.


The chart above shows how Dean’s estimates have changed over time from April 2015 to Jan 2016. Notice especially the big change in the estimates from April to June 2015, after that the estimates seem to converge nicely from June 2015 through Jan 2016. My guess is that the data processing in Texas has been improving dramatically over the past 7 months.

A possible explanation for the difference in the oil data compared to condensate and natural gas that Dean has noticed may be that the RRC has chosen to focus on the oil data first as this is where most of the tax revenue comes from. Better data (more complete that is) from condensate and natural gas will soon follow.


This final chart blows up the vertical scale somewhat to better compare Dean’s corrected estimate for C+C with EIA and RRC data, the scale is in kb/d (different from the other charts). It also shows the trailing 12 month running average for C+C output. The 12 month average of Texas C+C output has been on a rough plateau between 3450 and 3500 kb/d since July 2015 based on Dean’s Jan 2016 estimate.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

499 Responses to Texas Oil and Gas Production March 2016

  1. Duncan Idaho says:
    • GoneFishing says:

      Nice site and good domain name.
      Give it time, because of the time lag effects we are now seeing the temperatures from 330 ppm CO2 levels back in the 1970’s. Can’t wait for the effects of 400 plus. Those kids being born now are in for some weird and warm weather. I wonder if it will snow much at all where I live, in 2050. Without the snow and the low winter temps the ticks and fleas will be running hog wild. Crops we don’t need. Those tiger mosquitos might stay too. Now they die out.
      Goodbye to maple syrup too.

      1001 blistering future summers:

    • MotherEarth says:

      There is no such thing as a free lunch

      Pay me now or pay me later

      • HVACman says:

        And never substitute Parkay for butter. It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.

    • GoneFishing says:

      The latest studies show that methane release in the US and the world is much higher than previously estimated. The idea of natural gas being a “clean” source of energy is now dead. One must also consider, a fact generally never mentioned, is that the methane converts to carbon dioxide, a much longer lasting greenhouse gas. So we not only get the greatly amplified heating effects of methane releases and the CO2 from what we burn, but that then the releases becomes a long lasting greenhouse gas addition to our atmosphere. A triple threat.
      As far as climate effects go, the move away from coal to larger scale natural gas burning is a wash at best and possibly worse.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Gonefishing,

        The methane converts to CO2 relatively quickly so it is the CO2 that is important (half life of about 30,000 years for CO2). When we burn methane only half of the CO2 is emitted per unit energy relative to coal. If you think burning coal would be a better idea than burning natural gas you are mistaken. We should burn less natural gas, but it seems that you are arguing that natural gas is worse than coal. Wrong!



        Note that David Archer is one of the experts on the carbon cycle.

        The whole Methane bomb story is not convincing to many at Real Climate (Gavin Schmidt or David Archer). Much ado over very little.

        • George Kaplan says:

          The methane level is rising, and last year the rate accelerated. It doesn’t matter what it’s residence time is provided enough is being emitted to continuously overcome the decline rate, which it is at the moment. David Archer does not dismiss methane as an issue, it is after all 28% of GHG contribution, he says CO2 is more important and should be the main focus. He does not believe the arctic methane bomb threat is significant – this refers to a sudden and large release mainly from hydrates. That is not the same as a slow and increasing concentration from various sources, that from natural gas extraction being the one discussed. CO2 does not stay in the atmosphere for 30000 years, individual molecules actually swap out in the carbon cycle over a few years but for GHG effects it’s half life is considered to be in the hundreds of years (I’ve seen 300 and 500 used in NOAA, NASA, UK met office etc. papers.)

          • Dennis Coyne says:

            Hi George,

            I was incorrect, the half life is not 30,000 years. The mean lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 is about 30,000 years, due to a very long tail for the last 10% of emissions.

            If 1200 Gt of carbon is emitted, about 20% remains in the atmosphere after 1000 years. Note that 50% is sequestered very quickly and that the 600 Gt not sequestered results in atmospheric CO2 of about 515 ppm, so the 20% remaining after 1000 years is 20% of 1200 Gt or 240 Gt of carbon (multiply by 44/12 to get CO2), so atmospheric CO2 falls to 374 ppm after 1000 years. At 10,000 years about 10% of the initial emissions remain (120 Gt in this example) and atmospheric CO2 falls to 327 ppm at that point. After 100,000 years 6.5% of the 1200 Gt of emissions remains and atmospheric CO2 reaches 310 ppm at that point.

            I have assumed the baseline for natural CO2 levels (during an interglacial) is 280 ppm. If we would prefer to get back to 350 ppm for atmospheric CO2 and we emit 1200 Gt of carbon it will take between 1000 and 10,000 years to do so.

            That is why Archer believes the focus should be on CO2, I agree with Archer. Methane is much less of a concern than carbon dioxide emissions because methane is removed from the atmosphere relatively quickly.

            Natural gas will peak and decline and its use is much preferred to coal, wind and solar are better, the peak will bring higher natural gas prices and a rapid transition to other energy sources. This is still 20 to 30 years away.

            Link to Archer paper below:


            • George Kaplan says:

              Rightly or not government signaturies for COP21 seem to be assuming BECCS is going to be used to bring down CO2 in the second half of this century, and the half life would be reduced accordingly.


              • Nick G says:

                So…is paper recycling a bad idea?

                Should we be sequestering carbon in landfills in the form of paper??

                • Nathanael says:

                  No. Paper recycling reduces the need to *cut down trees* to generate paper, and cutting down trees is one of the worst things you can do in terms of global warming.

                  However, you arguably shouldn’t recycle plastic. Put it in a landfill (so it doesn’t get into the food chain). It won’t biodegrade. It’s carbon sequestration, putting the oil back in the ground.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Sounds expensive
                Better to plant forests and reduce population so less farmland is needed. More carbon could be sequestered the first step is to reduce emissions.

                • Nick G says:


                  My question is: is paper recycling counter-productive? Perhaps I shouldn’t worry about separating paper and putting it into a recycling bin, if putting it into a landfill is actually a positive thing in the form of carbon sequestration.

                  So…what do you think – is paper recycling misguided?

          • Javier says:

            Mr. Kaplan,

            We do not know the origin of the methane increase. It could be biogenic.

            The Mystery of the Global Methane Rise: Asian Agriculture or U.S. Fracking?

            And we do not know why between 1998 and 2007 global levels of atmospheric methane did not rise at all.

            Should we be alarmed about something that we don’t know where is coming from and what controls its levels?

            If we should, the easiest way to control methane is to reduce cattle and grow rice without inundation. And I think we should do that even if methane is not a problem, just to reduce our pressure on natural resources while improving our health (less meat).

            • George Kaplan says:

              Methane concentrations didn’t rise between 1998 and 2007 because rate of emissions equaled the rate of decay in the atmosphere. At the moment we are emitting a bit more, so concentration is going up. If half life of methane is 12 years then we lose about 5.5% per year or about 100 ppb. We are adding about 20 ppb, so overall 120 ppb, which means if emissions don’t increase we will flat line again at about 2140 ppb.

              The 12 year value is just a simplification. Methane decay isn’t a first order lag – it depends on hydroxyl concentration, at higher methane concentrations the hydroxyl becomes limiting and is a function of ozone, temperature and other parameters, and the half life would be longer. CO2 is more complicated to model which is why detailed climate models are important and need to be continually developed.

              If the best information indicates there are risks of serious consequences in the future if we don’t do something now then we should certainly be alarmed. Risk is probability multiplied by consequence, summed over all possibilities. It isn’t just randomly chosen scenarios that you or others think are or are not important.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                The low probability scenarios don’t add much risk. If you believe that fossil fuels will never peak, you should be very worried.

                I don’t worry much about unlikely scenarios.

                • Nick G says:

                  They’re only unlikely due to deliberate public policy and planning that would not have happened if everyone thought the way Javier and Fernando think.

                  We wouldn’t have wind or solar power in anything like it’s current state of development without Jimmy Carter going to a great deal of trouble to kickstart it’s development. He created the DOE, the NREL, etc., etc.

                  We wouldn’t have EVs in anything like their current state of development without Bill Clinton going to a great deal of trouble to kickstart their development. He created the Program for a New Generation of Vehicles which directly led to the Prius and the Chevy EV1 and Volt.

                  Most of the remaining fossil fuels need to stay in the ground. That is likely to happen, but *only* due to active planning and political fighting against the forces of Business As Usual.

                  • George Kaplan says:

                    I agree. There is a large problem with high consequence, low probability events in that the layman and some professionals simple dismiss them and then we end up with events like Deepwater Horizon, Flixborough, Piper Alpha, Exxon Valdiz etc . In the oil industry one reason there are industry standards that must be followed under all circumstances is to avoid any possible argument from statements like “low probability scenarios don’t add much risk”. They add huge risk because they are the ones where people die – in industry in small numbers, but for GHG issues it might be in the billions.

              • Javier says:

                Mr. Kaplan,

                “Methane concentrations didn’t rise between 1998 and 2007 because rate of emissions equaled the rate of decay in the atmosphere.”

                Obvious, but we don’t know which sources changed their methane production and why, so not very useful.

                “At the moment we are emitting a bit more, so concentration is going up.”

                We don’t know if that is the cause, because the main sources are biogenic. I don’t think rice cultivation or wetlands can be considered emissions. Are cow farts considered emissions?

                In any case we can all contribute to stopping methane increase. We should stop eating cow meat (I don’t eat cow meat), and we should buy rice that is not cultivated by inundation (I don’t do that now). Perhaps those most worried about methane should lead by example.

                • George Kaplan says:

                  I’m not sure what you think you are arguing against. I actually don’t think methane is the biggest issue if emissions stay at current levels but I was countering what I think are incorrect statements. If there is a real probability of a methane ‘bomb’, then yes I think there is a real problem and we need to better understand it and act to avoid it – and if we don’t know we should err on the side of caution, especially as the best solutions to the climate change issue addresses resource limits, overpopulation, water limitations , general pollution etc. as well.

              • I refer you all to the methane concentration movie in my post. Its possible the guilty extra emissions are coming from China’s coal and agriculture.

            • I'm Daft says:

              Every weekend, usually on a Saturday night, my neighbourhood experiences random gunfire. Some of the bullets actually hit my house and on the odd occasion one will come through the open window and narrowly miss my head. I’m not inclined to worry about it though as the source of the gunfire has not been determined. Once the athoraties find out where the bullets are coming from I’ll probably start taking cover. You see unless I know the source of the gunfire it’s not really something I care to concern myself with. I call it ‘the reverse precautionary principle’. Many of my neighbours do duck and take cover but they are over reacting and are not taking into consideration the unknowns. Until proven otherwise it’s a distinct possiblity that there are no bullets at all.

        • GoneFishing says:

          No Dennis, I am not wrong, you just misinterpreted my writing. Let me make myself clear. I am not and never will be a proponent of coal burning. I was only discussing methane released by people, did not get into the methane bomb thing, which is a natural feedback and another discussion. I have followed Archers work and think he is a great guy and scientist, other great scientists disagree, but back to the topic.
          Yes, methane is relatively short lived and over 20 years is about 100 times as strong as CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That means a huge pulse of greenhouse effect from all the leakage of drilling, transport, pipelines and waste. The long term effects are from the CO2.
          When I said “As far as climate effects go, the move away from coal to larger scale natural gas burning is a wash at best and possibly worse.” I did not mean that we should burn coal, I meant that natural gas is not an alternative. Solar, wind power and efficiency are the alternatives right now.
          And yes, natural gas does produce less CO2, but evidence shows that the methane leaks produce a large greenhouse gas forcing. Don’t worry about the far future so much, once we pulse enough greenhouse gas forcing in the now and near future, natural feedbacks will take over. Natural feedbacks have a much higher range of forcing than human sources. We want to avoid strong pulses (50 years or so) now to get a chance at reducing feedback problems.
          Recent data shows that the methane releases from natural gas production and use more than negate any CO2 savings.

          That is why the huge amount of wood burning is not good. Europe and others have been using wood as an alternative energy to produce heat and electrical power, and it does not get counted as part of their CO2 output on the books. What this is really doing is putting a large pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere that will not be captured for 60 to 100 years, if the trees are allowed to grow back. Since this activity will go on, the pulse of CO2 will grow and last for much longer than that.

          I know in my own neighborhood the mechanical beavers have removed many trees to burn as heating fuel. There is no sign of regrowth or replacement. In fact land cleared of trees is often put to other uses. You should see the amount of money, time and energy they put into wood cutting and burning. Just adding more insulation and sealing up would cut their need for wood tremendously.

          Hope I made myself clear now. If not, I tried.

          • Dennis Coyne says:

            Hi Gonefishing,

            I agree wood burning is not a solution, I also agree more insulation and better buildings will help. I still disagree that over the short term that natural gas is not a better solution than coal until wind and solar can ramp up to a degree that natural gas use can fall. I also think a tax on fossil fuels (based on their emissions) is a good idea as increased prices will result in greater energy efficiency and greater use of alternatives.

            There are many sources of methane emissions besides natural gas production and use.

            Also some links to those latest studies would be more convincing. Often there are opposing studies, the folks at Real Climate don’t seem to be concerned.


            • Oldfarmermac says:

              It appears to me at first glance that burning wood, if it is efficiently harvested and burnt, and the land replanted in trees, would be pretty close to our best option in terms of being carbon neutral at the personal level.

              Of course the forests of the world wouldn’t last more than a VERY few years if we burnt every last tree, trying to substitute wood for coal and gas.

              Field crops such as grasses do grow back very quickly of course, but the yields in terms of investment in machinery, labor, fuel, etc, don’t leave us with nearly as much net energy as advertised by folks peddling such schemes.

              I have seen an estimate made by a professional forester to the effect that in the USA our forests would be gone in five years or so if we switched over to wood exclusively for heat and electrical generation.

              Considering the political situation in respect to nukes, I doubt very many will be built in western countries for at least a couple of decades. A new generation of nukes might prove to be safe enough to quit worrying about runaway nukes, but convincing the public of that will take a very long time.

              A few years back , I was convinced peak fossil fuels meant peak civilization and the end of life as we know it, but more recently I have grown cautiously optimistic that renewables are coming along fast enough that with luck we MIGHT build out renewables fast enough to offset the decline of fossil fuels.

              Success will depend more on good leadership than anything else.

              Pray to the Sky Daddy of your choice that we get a series of PEARL HARBOR WAKEUP EVENTS sufficient to get our collective attention, but not so severe as to seriously limit our ability to invest in renewables, efficiency, and conservation.

              (It doesn’t really matter if Sky Daddy is there. Prayer changes people, and people change things.Motivated people make things happen. Prayer fosters the sense of community,builds morale, encourages teamwork, etc. )

            • GoneFishing says:

              There have been a lot of studies but this is the recent one I just found.

              Here is one for the urban region of Boston Mass.

              Union of Concerned Scientists

              Lots of references in some of these articles, so you can follow them on your own.

              The tax on fossil fuels should be on total emissions, not just end use emissions, or else it will not be a realistic tax. I also think the tax should be on individual emissions of a given mine, pipeline, distribution network, etc. not some blanket number, since efficiencies vary greatly and leakages vary greatly. That would cause the worst offenders to tighten up or cease.

          • Don Wharton says:

            There is a huge body of evidence concerning the leakage of methane from natural gas drilling and transport. The fact is that with proper monitoring and fees for failures to fix these leaks we can reduce the problem by at least 90%. As it stands the gas industry does not much care if a few percent of their product leaks away. It might cost more to find the leaks and fix them. We need to have laws that will make them care.

            • Toolpush says:


              From memory, most of those escaped gases are from the distribution side of the equation. Basically from aging infrastructure running past everybody’s houses.

              Methane leakages are controlled on drilling sites, mainly due to the potential for explosions. The only venting on a drill site, will be from gas contained in the drilled solids, and gas contained in circulating out a kick. Both cases are very minor in the scheme of things and both cases would be very hard to flare due to low concentration. You would probably produce more CO2 from the pilot light, running continuously.

              As for distribution losses, I know our local gas company, when they changed from town gas to Nat gas. They changed the whole old piping system from 2 psi large diameter cast steel pipes, to 35 psi, and small diameter nylon pipe. They used the old pipe as a conduit for the new pipe. I have not seen any numbers on how this saved methane leakage or how transferable this is to other cities, but it sounds like a good approach.

          • No such evidence. It’s baloney.

          • Ulenspiegel says:

            “Europe and others have been using wood as an alternative energy to produce heat and electrical power, and it does not get counted as part of their CO2 output on the books. What this is really doing is putting a large pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere that will not be captured for 60 to 100 years, if the trees are allowed to grow back. Since this activity will go on, the pulse of CO2 will grow and last for much longer than that. ”

            This statement is nonsense. If you actually had checked biomass growth in European countries then you actually would have found that mass of wood has been growing for decades, i.e. it is from a chemical POV not possible that from biomass a short term net increase of CO2 arises.

            I oppose generation of electricity with wood, but I have a better arguments than the CO2 aspect.

      • Methane is cleaner than coal. The subject does need to be studied and understood, something you won’t get reading climate panic propaganda sites.

        • GoneFishing says:

          Yes Fernando, methane does not output the sulfur and mercury that coal does. However, as far as GHG production and radiative forcing goes, it is no better than coal due to wasting and leakage directly to the atmosphere.

          • I don’t agree. There just isn’t that much leakage. You see, most of you just don’t know an iota about the industry on a world wide basis. A couple of students measuring concentrations in the USA isn’t evidence.

  2. AlexS says:

    Baker Hughes rig count:
    Total US rigs: -12
    Oil rigs: -15
    Gas rigs: +3

    Permian: -5
    Eagle Ford: -4
    Cana Woodford: -3
    Bakken, Niobrara: unchanged

    • R DesRoches says:

      Very impressive that with the large drop in rig counts Texas C + C production has not gone down.

      This is even with the big drop in Eagle Ford production. This data backs up the view that we are getting much more out of each rig drilling, and because of that the breakeven oil price has been decreasing.

      • AlexS says:

        The latest production data is for January.
        The latest rig count data is for end-March.
        The time lag between well spud and first production may be some 4-5 months,
        so January output reflects rig count as of last August-September.
        Besides, in the beginning of 2015 there was a large inventory of drilled but uncompleted wells (DUCs), which has been decreasing during the year.

        Interestingly, EIA’s data on LTO production in the Eagle Ford and the Permian basin, based on Drillinginfo database, shows a peak in March 2015 and a visible declining trend thereafter

        LTO production in the Eagle Ford and Permian basin (mb/d)
        source: EIA

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Not a very big drop so far, maybe 250 kb/d in Texas LTO since March and maybe a little higher than Jan 2015?

          • AlexS says:

            Combined EFS+Permian LTO is indeed down 256 kb/d between March 2015 and Jan 2016
            Of which EFS down 373 kb/d, Permian up 117 kb/d

  3. Enno Peters says:

    Dean, Dennis,

    Thanks for the post & graphs.

    So far Deans work has been excellent, but I got to admit that I have some doubt about the projected uptick in oil production in January 🙂

    We’ve seen some pretty strong declines in the Bakken in Dec, and Jan, and that will continue for another few months. Texas seems to have held up better overall last year (according to the EIA and Dean), but an increase in January after the price carnage of December (and the feared OPEC meeting early Dec), would just be quite surprising to me. I therefore think the added warning may be justified. I’m very curious to see how this plays out in the coming months.

    For those who missed it in the last post, I made a new post on the Eagle Ford
    here. A new feature is (among others) a well status overview, that shows the % of wells within each production range.

    • Dean says:

      Thanks Dennis for the nice post!

      dclonghorn posted in the previous thread that …”The three latest preliminary monthly crude oil production reports showed delinquent leases dropping from 9048 for Nov. 15; 7082 for Dec. 15; and 5014 for Jan. 16″. Can someone please post the link relative to the delinquent leases (I am not able to find it)? Thanks

      • AlexS says:

        Dean, Dennis,

        thanks for the post.
        I agree with Enno, that the increase in January production to May 2015 levels looks suspicious.
        Do you think that the “improvement in data processing” by the TRRC was not equal for different months?

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi AlexS,

          It is only me that is speculating about an improvement in data processing, though there have been some rumors that Texas is moving to all digital processing which should be an improvement. My guess from looking at Dean’s estimates, is that the switch to a digital vs paper processing occurred sometime between April and June of 2015, this may have been as simple as a requirement that all reports be filed by computer rather than by paper. Someone who produces oil in Texas would know better than me.

          I agree that the increase in Jan 2016 look suspicious which is why I suggested about 3450 kb/d, which is almost the same as Dean’s Dec 2015 estimate for Dec 2015 (3440 kb/d). That estimate should also be reduced by about 30 kb/d to 3410 kb/d, so I would say that might be a better estimate. Keep in mind that the Eagle Ford has been adding quite a few wells based on the Eagle Ford web page at the RRC and my guess is that output has been relatively flat there. Also if we ignore the most recent two months, Dean’s estimate shows very little decline in Texas C+C output from August 2015 through Nov 2015.

          There would be a lag between the oil price change in December and changes in output of 2 months or more as the decision to complete a well is made in advance.

          • Enno says:


            “Keep in mind that the Eagle Ford has been adding quite a few wells based on the Eagle Ford web page at the RRC”

            Can you please clarify? Which page are you referring to?

            From the data from the RRC, and also as shown in the Drilling Productivity, production seems quite far from flat in the EF, so I wonder why you have this impression.

            • Dennis Coyne says:

              Hi Enno,

              Output has not declined very much since August. The drilling productivity report overestimates the decline from Nov to Jan 2016.


              See video on right to get oil wells on schedule.

              • Enno Peters says:

                Hi Dennis,

                I will make the very bold claim that that movie shows OnSchedule numbers that are not fully up-to-date 🙂

                On the same site you can download oil production statistics. The RRC reports:
                2014 : 1072 kbo/d
                2015 : 1092 kbo/d

                I have all the production data from EF wells, and what I see is :
                2014 : 1069 kbo/d
                2015 : 1111 kbo/d

                What this means in my mind, is that I have ‘exactly’ all the data that the RRC uses in its reports on the EF. The reason why I report a little extra 2015 production, I suspect, is that that RRC report is from end of Feb, and I updated my numbers later, so probably some late reporting added extra 2015 production.

                What I see in my data however is that in July 2015 more than 9600 wells were producing, whereas in your (very nice) movie it shows that 8640 wells were “OnSchedule”.

                I therefore suspect that this attribute has not always been timely set to the correct value.

                The DPR may have some overstatement, but I suspect it’s not so much. I withhold further judgement until I see about 3 months more of revision history.

                • Dennis Coyne says:

                  Hi Enno,

                  It is likely that the production numbers for 2015 are too low on that web page. Perhaps the number of wells on schedule is too low as well. I wonder if the “producing wells” in your database are all from “Eagle Ford” fields.

                  See http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/media/25614/eagleford_fields_and_counties_201412.xls

                  Maybe you are including wells from the Eagle Ford region that are not part of the Eagle Ford play.

                  My understanding is that the “Austin Chalk” play is above the Eagle Ford play so perhaps you are including some of those wells?

                  In Jan 2016 you have 9916 oil wells in your Eagle Ford database, there were 10,441 oil wells on schedule as of Feb 1 and 10, 140 as of Jan 1, 2016.

                  There may have been some late reporting of the wells on schedule. The question is how much oil was produced from those extra 525 wells? If they were new wells producing at 450 b/d that would be an extra 236 kb/d and 1170 kb/d of oil output from the Eagle Ford in Jan 2016. Typically about 79% of Eagle Ford C+C is oil so C+C output from the Eagle Ford would be 1480 kb/d in Jan 2016.

                  Note that this estimate is optimistic. If each of the 525 missing wells produced only 300 b/d on average then C+C output would be lower at 1380 kb/d. Reality is likely to be somewhere between these two estimates, maybe around 1430 kb/d.

                  Chart below shows changes in oil wells on schedule in Eagle Ford, average for past 12 months was 232 new wells per month.

                  • Enno Peters says:


                    “Maybe you are including wells from the Eagle Ford region that are not part of the Eagle Ford play.”

                    No, the RRC has made it very easy: they have lists with leases per district, and per lease the field name is given. I include the lease if the field name has “Eagle ford” in it. The chance for errors is very low.

                    “In Jan 2016 you have 9916 oil wells in your Eagle Ford database, there were 10,441 oil wells on schedule as of Feb 1 and 10, 140 as of Jan 1, 2016.”

                    No, I also have something like 10600 wells in my database. For this overview, I removed a 50 or so service wells, and a 500 or so wells with a wellbore that is not exactly “Horizontal” (could be vertical, directional, or several other types). That’s why I list “horizontal wells” there. Almost all, but not all, wells in the EF are horizontal.

                    See the presentation Alex listed, a nice graph at the bottom shows that completion has tracked rig count. Rig count has dropped in the EF at a similar pace as the Bakken since March 2015. You would expect the EF to drop faster than the Bakken in such a case, as EF wells decline faster and more, as measured from the peak.

                  • AlexS says:


                    ” I wonder if the “producing wells” in your database are all from “Eagle Ford” fields.
                    Maybe you are including wells from the Eagle Ford region that are not part of the Eagle Ford play.
                    My understanding is that the “Austin Chalk” play is above the Eagle Ford play so perhaps you are including some of those wells? ”

                    There is not only Austin Chalk, but also other formations targeted by drilling: Pearsall, Buda, Woodbine, etc. Along with differencies in geographical area included in the Eagle Ford, that complicates comparison of EFS production data from different sources.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Enno,

                    Most of wells that are not horizontal are not targeting the Eagle Ford play. The RRC gives a list of 22 active fields in that are considered the Eagle Ford. I got the number of wells included in Jan 2016 by using your website. Note that service wells would not be considered oil wells. I doubt that many vertical oil wells have been drilled in the Eagle Ford since 2010.

                    The list of field numbers for the 10 active fields that have produced most of the oil are below:

                    27135 700
                    27135 750
                    12018 200
                    84750 500
                    86950 600
                    34733 610
                    00870 500
                    30379 300
                    22418 500
                    17466 200

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Enno,

                    Of the horizontal wells that you report on (about 10,100 wells) how many reported no production in Jan 2016?

                    When I looked closely at the Eagle Ford data a few years ago, there are many wells that report no output even though they are in the RRC database and I assume that means they are “on schedule”.

                    It would be interesting to see how the percentage of wells reporting no output changes as you go back in time over the previous 24 months, this might give some indication of the level of “completeness” of the data.

                  • Enno says:


                    I just sent you the data.
                    No zeros were added if no production for the lease was reported, so you should be able to check your above question as well.

              • AlexS says:


                The EIA has been underestimating oil production in Texas in 2015, and had to revise upwards its numbers when it changed its methodology, which is now based on producers’ surveys. I do not exclude that the numbers for Texas production in 2015 can again be slightly revised, but:

                1) I still think that there was a downward trend in EFS last year;

                2) I doubt that production in the Eagle Ford and Texas in general has increased in January 2016.

                Apart from the DPR, EIA regular monthly production statistics (based on producers’ surveys); the numbers from DrillingInfo (see one of my charts) and some other sources still show a declining trend.

                This includes statistics from Bentek Energy (apologies for a long quote):

                Report: Production in Bakken, Eagle Ford drops slightly in January

                March 7, 2016

                Production in the Eagle Ford and Bakken shale plays dropped slightly in January vs. December 2015, according to Platts Bentek, an analytics and forecasting unit of Platts.
                Oil production from the Eagle Ford shale basin in Texas was relatively unchanged in January, decreasing about 11,000 barrels per day (b/d), or less than 1%, vs. the previous month, the latest analysis showed. This marks the sixth month since June 2015 that the Eagle Ford shale has continued its trend of decline. Similarly, crude oil production in the North Dakota section of the Bakken shale formation of the Williston Basin dipped slightly. It was down 12,000 b/d, or just over 1%, on a month-over-month basis in January. This continued the trend of marginal decline that began last summer.
                The average oil production from the South Texas, Eagle Ford basin in January was 1.4 million barrels per day. On a year-over-year basis, that was down about 200,000 barrels per day, or about 13%, from January 2015, according to Sami Yahya, Platts Bentek energy analyst. The average crude oil production from the North Dakota section of the Bakken in January was 1.2 million b/d, about 3% lower than year ago levels, he said.
                “Current internal rates of return in both the Eagle Ford and Bakken shales are weak, under 10%,” said Yahya. “And producers need to continue generating cash flow for their operations. The number of active rigs in those basins has gotten so low that it is almost a certainty that producers are dipping into their inventory of drilled but uncompleted wells. Those wells are cheaper to complete since the drilling costs are already sunk.”
                Yahya pointed to the new analysis conducted by Platts/Bentek of the drilled but uncompleted (DUC) wells for many of the major shale basins. According to the results, current DUC inventories total 831 wells in the Williston Basin. In the Eagle Ford Basin, there are approximately 1,022 wells that are awaiting completion. These figures refer to wells drilled between the start of 2014 and October 2015. These well inventories disregard more recent wells because of the difficulty in distinguishing between wells that have been intentionally left uncompleted and wells that are simply in the process of being completed.
                “A number of major producers (outside the Northeast) have stated that they will reduce capital spending and cut their drilling programs significantly in some instances,” said Yahya. “Those producers will have to complete their DUCs in order to sustain their production levels. Efficiency gains are not enough anymore to help keep production volumes afloat.”

                • AlexS says:

                  It is important to not that the discrepancy between various estimates of oil production in the Eagle Ford is partly due to differences in the geographical area included in EFS.
                  The number of Texas counties included in EFS area varies from 14 to 30.

                • Dennis Coyne says:

                  Hi AlexS,

                  I agree Eagle Ford output has declined, especially from March 2015 to August 2015. The rate of decline has slowed since then by a factor of 2. I agree that Texas output may not have increased in Jan, I think it was probably flat to down slightly from Dec 2015.

      • dclonghorn says:

        First month delinquent leases dropped from 9048 in NOV to 5014 by January 16. Second month delinquent leases dropped from 1292 for Oct 15 to 817 for Dec 15.
        Texas seems to be doing something to get the data in quicker. This may mean that the reported increase is due to better reporting of declining production. It is hard to say without a lease by lease analysis.

      • Dean says:


    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Enno,

      The drop in Eagle Ford oil output, when we account for incomplete data is from about 1300 kb/d in March 2015 to 1140 kb/d in Aug 2015, since then the decline has been modest to about 1070 kb/d by Nov 2015. I used your awesome website to get the RRC numbers for the Eagle Ford and then assumed the amount of “missing” data is uniform throughout Texas, the assumption may not be valid. When I have used this method in the past it has given fairly good estimates. The estimate actually matches the DPR estimate fairly well through Nov 2015. The December and January estimates are higher than the DPR, based on my Eagle Ford Model, I think the DPR estimate is too low. Time will tell.

      • AlexS says:

        Dennis, Enno, Dean

        The EIA has recently released estimates of U.S. shale gas and LTO production, which are based on DrillingInfo data.
        They can be found here (excel files):

        The numbers for Eagle Ford are slightly lower than in the DPR, as the DPR data includes some conventional production in the “Eagle Ford region”. Both sources show a visible declining trend in output from the peak in March 2015.

        The EIA/DrillingInfo estimate for January 2016 is 1230.3 kb/d vs. 1332.5 kb/d in the latest issue of the DPR.

        C+C production in the Eagle Ford (kb/d)

        • shallow sand says:

          Hey guys, Kind of busy right now, but taking a quick look.

          I suggest comparing specific company EFS production on the RRC site to what is reported in the company’s 2015 10K’s and/or press releases.

          For example, I took a quick look at MRO’s 10K and press release. They break down production by region and have EFS broken out separately.

          Two issues to keep in mind. First, the production amounts in the 10K, etc are net of royalties. Second, hard to know how many company operated wells have non-operated working interest owners, plus how many non-operated working interests they own that would show up under a different operator on RRC website.

          However, comparing 10K/press release to RRC data may offer some clues. Also, companies typically report number of completions by area/basin also. Could compare to RRC data also.

        • The LTO production drop appears to offset the offshore project increases forecasted for 2016. Remember the EIA forecasts from last year? They were forecasting beefier USA production, weren’t they?

        • AlexS says:

          “The LTO production drop appears to offset the offshore project increases forecasted for 2016”

          Not exactly

          • Enno Peters says:

            Great graphs as always Alex.

            • AlexS says:

              Thanks Enno,

              the latest graph is from this EIA presentation:

              • Enno says:

                Thanks Alex,

                To all following this discussion, the last slide has a revealing graph on the decline in completions in th EF.

                • shallow sand says:

                  Enno and AlexS. I think it is interesting that US non LTO production is forecast at 3.96 bopd in 2016 and 4.00 million bopd in 2017, with GOM increasing while AK and onshore lower 48 decline slightly from 2016 to 2017.

                  US is dependent on its high cost LTO (and imports) for the foreseeable future.

                  Really amazing how long prices have stayed low.

                  Seems equity investors are forgetting the upcoming bloodbath also known as Q1 2016 earnings for US E & P. The cake is baked on quarterly oil and gas prices not seen since 2003, and in some basins as far back as early 2002 or even 1999.

          • I’ll be damned, I could swear that plot you show confirms my point. Thus far it sure looks like the offshore won’t make up the losses, 2016 will be down about 0.5 mmbopd versus 2015. Time will tell if it can reverse the decline. It depends on the oil price later this year, I suppose.

          • Dennis Coyne says:

            Hi Alex,

            Through quarter 1 of 2016 Fernando’s statement is roughly correct, remember that all forecasts tend to be incorrect.

            Chart below has a revised Eagle Ford model using data from Enno’s website to construct a well profile used from July 2014 forward, I used my old well profile for Jan 2010 to June 2014. From Jan 2016 to Dec 2016 the model assumes 146 new wells are completed per month. The 2014 well profile was used for first 25 months and then the old well profile from months 26 to 139. EUR is 131 kb at 24 months, 173 kb at 60 months and 209 kb at 139 months when the well is shut in at 10 b/d.

            Enno’s blog is at


            • Enno Peters says:


              I think your projected 146 wells / month in 2016 is highly unrealistic.

              EF, only oil wells & oil rigs:
              2013 : 215 wells starting / month, avg 193 rigs, thus 1.1:1
              2014 : 252 wells starting / month, avg 200 rigs, 1.26:1

              Latest rig count : 37
              Even if the rig efficiency improved over the last year, like we’ve seen in the Bakken, say to 1.5, that would still be a far cry from 146.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                HI Enno

                There are DUCs. The rig count can increase.
                What is your estimate for wells completed in 2016?

                I have tended to underestimate, I agree 146 may be optimistic but over 200 wells were added to the schedule in February 2016. There have been times when wells completed were 2x the rigs

                • Enno Peters says:


                  I have no clue, but I expect it to be << 146 wells/month.

                  One indication is EOG :
                  In 2016, "EOG plans to complete approximately 150 net wells in the Eagle Ford, compared to 329 net wells completed in 2015″

                  EOGs output (not corrected for net revenue interest) was a little over 20% of EFs output in October. As a very simple rough estimate I therefore would take something like 5 * 150 = 750 wells = just over 60 wells / month. So, somewhere between 40 – 90 wells / month?

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Enno,

                    One always has to assume something, but I am not sure an assumption that all oil companies operating in the Eagle Ford play will behave the same way as EOG will be correct.

                    An alternative assumption is that there are about 800 DUCs in the EFS (Eagle Ford Shale), which would be about 66 wells per month that could be completed over the next 12 months if no new wells were drilled.

                    Now let’s assume an average of 30 oil rigs operating each month on average over the next 12 months and that each rig can drill one well per month (a conservative estimate). That would allow 96 wells to be completed per month, even with a very low rig count.

                    For me, 90 completions per month on average in the EFS is the lowest reasonable estimate.

                  • Enno says:

                    Hi Dennis,

                    I would love to bet with you on that (avg #completions of oil wells in EF in 2016 per month >= 90).:-)

                    I didn’t assume that all companies do exactly as EOG, just that its strategy doesn’t deviate wildly from the remaining 80% of production.

                    Do you also expect that Bakken completions drop with just 1/3 compared with 2015?

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Enno,

                    In the Bakken some companies behaved very differently from others, if we take a sample of one and then assume all other companies will be similar, we would have gotten very different results depending upon the company chosen. Perhaps EOG will represent the “average” company’s behavior and perhaps not.

                    I agree that a 140 well per month completion rate is likely too high, but I think 60 new wells per month will be too low an estimate for the year. I do not expect the well completion rate to fall by a factor of 3 from 2015 levels and by over a factor of 4 lower than the peak rate of 263 wells per month for the 12 months ending Feb 2015.

                    Also note that the EFS has the advantage of lower well costs, lower transportation costs to the refinery and generally better oil infrastructure development in Texas.

                    For the same reason that I believe that more than 40 wells per month will be completed on average in the Bakken in 2016 (and that 60 wells per month is about as low as it will go for a yearly average), I think that a 60 well per month average is too low for the Eagle Ford.

                    For the Bakken/Three Forks the 2015 average monthly completion rate was about 121 new wells per month. The average monthly completion rate in 2015 for the Eagle Ford play was about 180 new wells per month.

                    A conservative estimate for each of these plays is half the 2015 average completion rate. I think it less likely that the Eagle Ford will get that low because January’s completion rate was about 150 wells (still 60 wells above the 90 well level) where the Bakken/Three Forks only had about 70 wells completed. My guess for the Eagle Ford is about 115 completions per month on average for 2016 (1380 completions for the year) with a range of 90/month to 140 wells per month.

                  • AlexS says:


                    “I think it less likely that the Eagle Ford will get that low because January’s completion rate was about 150 wells ”

                    What is the source of the data on January well completions?

                    “An alternative assumption is that there are about 800 DUCs in the EFS (Eagle Ford Shale), which would be about 66 wells per month that could be completed over the next 12 months if no new wells were drilled.”

                    Note that the number of DUCs cannot decline to zero. There was always a significant backlog of uncompleted wells in all key shale plays.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi AlexS,

                    If the rig count went to zero and stayed there, wouldn’t the DUCs eventually reach zero?

                  • AlexS says:


                    I think both assumptions are unrealistic.
                    But I agree that this year the number of well completions will exceed that of wells drilled in most shale plays.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi AlexS,

                    I agree that both assumptions are unrealistic.

                    According to the Platts estimate there are 1000 DUCs in the Eagle Ford as of Oct 31 2015, let’s assume 300 wells were drilled since then (based on oil rigs running from Nov to Jan and assuming 0.37 wells per rig per week are drilled ) and 450 wells were completed from Nov to Jan (optimistic, it may have been 400), that would reduce the DUCs to 850 by the end of Jan.

                    Now lets assume the average number of oil rigs in the Eagle Ford remains at 36 for the rest of the year and that 1.6 wells/rig/month are drilled. That would be 57 wells drilled per month, to get to 140 wells per month would probably not be realistic for a yearly average, as even if the DUCs could go to zero (which I agree is unrealistic), then no more than 134 new wells could be added per month if the rig count remains at 36 for Feb to Dec 2016. If we assume the DUCs cannot fall below 300 for logistical reasons, then only 107 new wells per month could be drilled from Feb to Dec 2016 (11 months).

                    The question in my mind is whether such a low rig count is realistic. If oil prices are predicted accurately by the oil futures market, then 80 to 100 new wells per month is realistic. The Dec 2016 futures option was around $42/b last time I looked, I doubt that oil will remain that low because falling oil supply will put upward pressure on oil prices by Sept 2016, as oil prices rise, the rig count will rise as well, as the DUCs fall it will also tend to result in an increase in the rig count. If there is a total meltdown of the US LTO industry, then we might see 720 wells completed in 2016 in the Eagle Ford.

            • AlexS says:


              the chart below shows that the number of well completions in the Eagle Ford in December 2015 was around 125.
              Since then, the rig count dropped significantly.
              The number of well completions may have not declined as much due to the DUCs. But 146 completions on average for 2016 seems too high.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                HI Alex S


                It depends on oil prices. I doubt oil prices will remain low in February 200 oil wells were added to the schedule. Note that the total wells reported on February 1 was similar to Enno’s count.

              • Tom says:

                AlexS / EnnoP / DC

                Does the high number of well completions (ref. graph above) in August 2015 explain the unexpected high production in Texas in Mar 2016? Just a thought. On the other hand, maybe the lag is too long??


                • AlexS says:


                  The lag is indeed too long. A completed well is actually ready to produce. Peak production is usually reached about a month after well completion.
                  There is a ~ 4-5-months lag between the start of the drilling process and first production

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Hi AlexS,

                The data from your chart suggests about 215 wells per month were completed on average in the Eagle Ford in 2015.

                If we assume 125 completions in Jan (same as December as output was relatively flat from Dec to Jan based on data from Enno and Dean’s revised TX C+C estimate), the last 3 months the average completion rate was 130 wells per month. In the Bakken the recent 3 months completion rate was about 75 wells per month. Generally the Eagle Ford has had more completions than the Bakken for the past two years. The average completion rate in the Eagle Ford for the last 2 years (using data from the last 12 months from your chart plus Enno’s estimates from the previous 11 months and assuming Jan 2016=Dec 2015) was 232 wells completed per month. For the Bakken for the past 24 months (Feb 2014 to Jan 2016) the completion rate was 149 wells completed per month.

                What is your guess for the average completion rate in the Bakken and Eagle Ford in 2016? My estimate is 70 completions per month in the Bakken and 110 completions per month in the Eagle Ford +/- 10% for both plays.

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi AlexS,

          The drillinginfo data is better, but still relies on RRC data which is incomplete.

          The “oil wells on schedule data” may also be incomplete, but so far the well completion rates through Feb 2016 have not slowed much in the Eagle Ford. Output has declined less than 100 kb/d since Aug 2015 in my estimation.

          • shallow sand says:


            I am reading an article by Jodi Quinnell, who is the manager of crude oil analytics at Genscape, Inc. The article is in the March, 2016 issue of The American Oil & Gas Reporter.

            She states Genscape believes US production hit a peak of slightly more than 9.6 million barrels a day in April, 2015 and ended 2015 at 9.2 million bopd. Genscape expects the decline to continue through 2016 and to bottom at 7.8 million barrels per day by end of Q3, 2017.

            Further, Genscape expects US rig count for all rigs to reach a low of 344 rigs in late summer, 2016. It expects the lower 48 drilling market to have lost 84% of its active fleet from 10/14.

            Just some projections I found interesting.

            • Dennis Coyne says:

              Thanks shallow sand,

              I doubt that it will go that low, I think higher oil prices will intervene and drilling will resume in early 2017, 8.5 Mb/d is my guess for the low point, probably in March 2017, give or take a couple of months. At some point the World will run short on oil and prices will rise, when that occurs is hard to guess.

  4. Guy Minton says:

    “My guess is that the data processing in Texas has been improving dramatically over the past 7 months.” Where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah, I said it several months ago, and got roundly pooh, poohed.
    It has gotten to be a small town since they were completing 2200 wells a month in 2014. Of course it has gotten faster, and there is not going the huge increases expected on prior months that had been anticipated. The producers are faster, and so is RRC.
    Let’s talk about the great and mighty “drilling efficiency”. I admit there has been a measurable amount of drilling efficiency, but what they are mainly deriving the most recent number from is from mainly drilling in the sweet spots. Duh, yes it looks more efficient overall, because of heavy drilling in areas that may get 250,000+ barrels the first year. That is not the norm for the Eagle Ford, for sure. From what I can tell from looking, is that the DUCs are accumulating in the areas that get less than 120,000 barrels the first year. Some of those are significantly less than 120k, so they may be completed to keep the leases before price gets to $70, but it will have to be offset by the sweet spots to keep cash flow intact. Only what they have to.

  5. Totally wrong reporting by Australian public broadcaster in March 2016

    Oil output rises even as US rig count falls to historic lows

    Brussels attacks

    Tony Blair is right: without the Iraq war there would be no Islamic State

    Iraq war and its aftermath failed to stop the beginning of peak oil in 2005

    Uploaded 5/7/2007
    Government admits oil is the reason for war in Iraq

    • I think the Iraq war was instigated by an alliance of neocon/Israel lobby plus oil/service company and weapons complex interests. But the overriding interest seems to have been the neocon strategy to get the USA tangled in Middle East wars. This in turn would weaken Israel’s enemies and increase animosity between the Muslim and Christian worlds. Such animosity plays very well if it leads to all out war between “the West” and Muslims. As long as the USA keeps behaving as an Israeli puppet the conflict will intensify.

      What I outlined above is a distilled version of writings/books by former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, former CIA operatives, and books such as “Fiasco” by Thomas E. Ricks. I’ve also incorporated recent material written about ISIS and its birthing at the US Army’s Camp Bucca.

      • Hickory says:

        Well Fernando, your ‘analysis’ is a good example of why people aren’t lined up to elect you to any policy post, and why people just don’t seem all that interested in your world view.

        • Your disagreement with my analysis shows I’m in a small minority, just like Michael Scheuer, the CIA analyst, and others who point out the USA is led by blundering fools, has a hopeless foreign policy, and is doomed to fail.

          However, other than pointing out I’m in the minority you really can’t make much of an argument, you know very well the USA is a blundering giant, it is being defeated in spite of its mighty might.

      • Nick G says:


        You might want to provide more reference material. In particular, some quotes, page numbers and specific book references (e.g., year and edition).

        • Yes Nick, I might, but I won’t. If you want to start reading look up “Marching Towards Hell” and “Imperial Hubris” by Scheuer. Also, try the search string “Rumsfeld’s Shop” plus “Karen Kwiatowski”.

  6. Caelan MacIntyre: Jacking Havier says:

    Carried over from here

    There’s no such thing as real objectivity or, in your case, maybe no such thing as, let’s call it, scientific procedure or process if, for example, you are making claims to be a scientist (What kind? Failed/Retired/Re-purposed?) (you want us to take it [your opacity] on good faith), yet posting on a non-science forum while, for example, arguing with those who do not necessarily practice science, yet almost as if they might– (i.e., “A joke is not much of a scientific argument. You can do better.” ~ Javier to Fred Magyar, who unlikely practices science. Yet Javier’s responses often seem to presuppose that we or at least some of us do and/or that this is a scientific forum.)– yet not making your published/public work or full/real name available on top of all that. See any problems at all with that?

    Eat cake, Jav too?

    Scientific process or procedure appears to be morphing and you may be a part of that process.
    It may even be a symptom of the early stages of societal collapse/decay too.

    Are you employed, incidentally? By whom/what? Who’s paying you? The taxpayer/public or a corporation? For what capacity? For the purpose of shilling or astroturfing for some business-as-usual entity? Or did you ‘retire’, or was your employment somehow terminated due to some kind of scientific fraud, misconduct or conflict-of-interest?
    If we were to graph your participation hereon and elsewhere where we have a good idea that it’s also you, would we find an inordinate amount of time/participation online relative to what one would reasonably expect of one who practices science to have time for? This seems like a valid scientific question– not that it is necessarily required of me (or you) hereon.

    Hansen’s apparent ‘subjective’ concern for humanity may suggest something about his humanity. Humanity, even religious fervor, and the practice of science are not mutually exclusive. Unlike you, Hansen doesn’t seem to lurk in the shadows, either.

    “It reflects poorly on you [on Javier]. Each of the last 2 lines that you show in that chart states 3.0 C for doubling of CO2.” ~ WebHubTelescope

    Ironically, perhaps, I am more concerned about anthropogenic global warming or anthropogenic climate change now, thanks to Javier, than I might have otherwise been.

    • Fred Magyar says:


      You are wrong. Javier is a PhD microbiologist. Whether or not he is still currently doing research is irrelevant. It doesn’t necessarily make his opinions on climate science valid.

      Many of us here also have backgrounds in science and engineering. I’d be willing to bet this is one of the most scientifically and mathematically literate group of people of any online forum. My personal opinion is that on the subject of climate change and it’s implications for humanity, Javier is dead wrong. In general I tend to apply occam’s razor, if I have a problem with my plumbing I consult a plumber and not an electrician.

      Since I can not hope to do all the necessary research myself I tend to defer to research done by scientists who have dedicated their careers to climate science. I do read scientific papers in many different fields that are relevant to my own opinion on whether or not climate change is a serious problem for the biosphere and therefore humanity in general.

      Is every climate scientist individually right, probably not. But when I look at the sum total of all the work being done by scientists in varied fields such as the physical and chemical sciences, biologists ecologists etc… a picture is emerging that does not seem bode well for mankind. I believe that the precautionary principle applies in spades to this issue!

      I also agree with Javier that there are many fundamental problems such as population and resource use that are things we have to deal with. Where I disagree is that I see climate change and the our participation in it as a very big part and parcel of those other problems!


      • I think Javier is mostly right. I usually focus on poring over data. I also went trough the paces trying to get very large 3D models to yield useable results. And I supervised a small team of scientists looking at Arctic climate, including long term climate change, to prepare the design strategy for very large Russian Arctic mega projects (some of the work we did was eventually used by the Russians in ongoing projects).

        For example, here’s an interesting look at methane concentration data from ESA which I happened to publish this morning


        By the way, here’s the latest AMS members’ “climate change opinions” survey results


        • Fred Magyar says:

          By the way, here’s the latest AMS members’ “climate change opinions” survey results

          Summary of Findings
          Views on climate change:
           Nearly all AMS members (96%) think climate change – as defined by AMS – is happening, with almost 9 out of 10 (89%) stating that they are either extremely’ or ‘very’ sure it is happening. Only 1% think climate change is not happening, and 3% say they don’t know.

          A large majority of AMS members indicated that human activity is causing at least a portion of the changes in the climate over the past 50 years. Specifically: 29% think the change is largely or entirely due to human activity (i.e., 81 to 100%); 38% think most of the change is caused by human activity (i.e., 61 to 80%); 14% think the change is caused more or less equally by human activity and natural events; and 7% think the change is caused mostly by natural events. Conversely, 5% think the change is caused largely or entirely by natural events, 6% say they don’t know, and 1% think climate change isn’t happening.

          And that’s just the AMS. My beef with Your and Javier’s views is that you seem to refuse to think in systems. Climate change is but one variable in multiple interacting dynamical systems and those are all subject to laws of chaos math.
          Chaos math tells us that even small perturbations can have huge consequences and that once a tipping point is reached the system will eventually restabilize in a new state but we don’t have any a priori reasons to assume that new state will be to our over all benefit. So I think it is beyond foolhardy to randomly start fiddling with the levers and dials of multiple interacting dynamical systems which is precisely what we are already doing!

          Case in point:


          Humanity’s transformation of the Earth has increased the concentration of greenhouse gases, thereby altering Earth’s climate (Walker and Steffen 1997). The drivers and the potential consequences of climate change are interwoven with a huge variety of biogeophysical and human-caused processes that complicate the analysis of policies designed to mitigate and adapt to climate change. In this paper, we explore how adaptive management (Walters 1997) can be used to grapple with the regional and global scientific, economic, and political uncertainties of climate change.

          For example: To spout bullshit, such as CO2 is a fertilizer for plants and therefore it is a benefit to humanity, is beyond ridiculous not because CO2 is not beneficial to plants, but because we do not have a handle on how that effects the system as a whole.


          • Synapsid says:


            When I’m told about CO2 good–plant food!, I agree and then start talking about weeds.

            My reply to “So what’s the harm in things getting warmer?” involves how fungi and insects respond to rising temperature, and a recommendation to ask a farmer about that because they know a lot about it.

          • Taylor smi says:

            Keep in mind all the “mediaorologists” down there at the A-M-S play a well known game of “gatekeeper” by making sure all the weather reports exclude the true cause (e.g. influence) of climate change which is now clearly understood to be the inbound Black Star. That is, big quakes and solar flare events are forecast by the honest scientists to be occurring in the May 2016-June 2016 time frame for sure, as our plant earth will once again pass between the sun & Black Star, which is the invisible/collapsed binary twin to our sun harkening back not only to the days of Noah and Moses, but also the profound changes in the entire earth planetary system described in Matthew 24 and Revelation. Paul also writes about what is going to happen soon in 1 Thes. 5:1-5; recognize how the son-child of day and light can sense the birth pangs leading up to an abrupt destruction…

            • notanoilman says:





            • Caelan MacIntyre says:

              Apparently when this black star thing aligns itself, it can distort ourselves slightly, including our brains which then can think funny things and that can turn our notions of reality on its ear.
              Some people, perhaps like Taylor smi here, may be more sensitive to its effects. Hang in there, Taylor smi, we are with you. You will come out on the Other Side. I have faith.

      • wimbi says:

        Fred. When I see yet another squib gathering re Javier and Fred, I always react the same “Jeez, don’t these guys have better things to do with their talents?”.

        What would that be? Obviously, at least as much time spent on laying out solutions as in quibbling about the depth of the problem. Example in my area, energy, acting on the precautionary principle and to hell with uncertainty:

        1) Quit wasting so much energy and resources doing silly or harmful things
        2) Put real effort into “alternatives”, which of course are NOT an alternative, but a necessity.
        3) Do it, don’t just talk about it. Do it here, do it now.

        My opinion based on personal experience is that all that is not only easy, but fun too, and leads to a BETTER, not a worse, existence.

        • GoneFishing says:

          Here is a great way to save money, time and energy for those who do not have the resources or ability to add solar their houses.
          Trip consolidation can reduce your driving by more than 50%. Instead of running off to get one thing, try to consolidate the trips to accomplish all the things possible in that region. Also pre-organize your business and shopping trips so that everything you need gets accomplished. That way one does not have to retrace trips just for one item or action.
          Also, think carefully about that missed item. It may be quite fine to do without it until the next consolidated set of trips.
          By doing this, one can even cut the amount of travel (time, money and pollution) to 25% or less compared to unorganized travel.
          So effectively the vehicle is now four times more effective (cheaper than buying a hybrid which might be only two to three times more effective). The vehicle also lasts longer and is more valuable. Win, win, win.
          Of course if you do both, the pollution/energy savings is even greater and you will save some more money too.

          With peak oil passing now, having more money set aside could be critical.

          • Fred Magyar says:

            Trip consolidation can reduce your driving by more than 50%. Instead of running off to get one thing, try to consolidate the trips to accomplish all the things possible in that region.

            Personally I much prefer to take multiple trips! That way I get more excercise, Of I course I usually walk or ride my bike for most of my errands… 🙂

            • GoneFishing says:

              Congratulations Fred on not taking unnecessary car trips.

              If I were to do that, my minimum round trip would be 15 miles over hills, if I don’t get run over on the curving narrow country roads.

              To walk the 15 miles over hills carrying a load would use about 2250 calories plus the 5 hours of travel time adds 415 calories (base metabolism) for a total of 2665. Since there is about 10 calories of fossil fuel in every food calorie, that is 26,650 calories plus the food calories I used, making 29315 extra calories expended.
              Now a gallon of gasoline has 31,500 food calories equivalent energy and I would use less than a half gallon which is 15750.
              So walking would not only put me in danger, waste five hours of time and waste almost twice the energy versus driving. It also would cost me more than the price of a day’s food to do it.
              Maybe if the food store was closer and the roads weren’t so narrow, but it’s near the bank, library, drugstore, hardware stores, etc. So I can do everything in one shot and use that 5 hours to waste energy typing on the internet! 🙂

              I would also be too tired to walk my dog her daily six miles. She would not like that. 🙂

              • Ralph says:

                Cycling would reduce that travel time by at least half, and at moderate speeds (say 8 mph) it consumes less energy than walking the same distance. Also, it is only a Western diet with high meat/dairy, a lot of processed food or high levels of packaging, that consumes 10 calories of ff for each calorie of food. A vegetarian diet bought in bulk and cooked at home would be much lower.

                I calculated that my electric assist bicycle saved net energy over cycling with just leg power, but then it uses less than 1% the energy of an ICE engine car.

                • GoneFishing says:

                  What you say makes sense, I eat a lot of unprocessed food. Would you know of any websites where I could learn about the energy embedded in various foods. I did read somewhere that converting grain to meat was a big loser as far as energy goes.

                  • Nick G says:

                    It is, though the big energy consumer by far is home refrigeration, followed by transportation from the store to home…

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    Nick, I think if you consider the amount of food that refrigerators prevent from being wasted, the refrigerator actually saves a lot of energy. I run my refrigerator near the freezing point to reduce spoilage to minimum because the energy and cost in spoiled food is very high. My freezer is my real friend in keeping food good until I need them.

                    18 to 22 cubic foot refrigerator-freezers use between 360 and 600 kwh/year. That is about $50 to $90 annual cost.
                    The average American throws out $28 to $40 a month in food waste. In the US 40 percent of food is wasted. That is a huge waste of many resources, including energy.

                    Of course if you want to save refrigeration energy just convert a freezer to a refrigerator by using an external thermostat on the power cord and run it at just above freezing. The extra insulation in the freezer dramatically cuts power usage, as does it’s horizontal configuration.

                    Household use of electricity in the US is only 1/3 of the power use total. If we halve that, it only drops energy use by 17%. Changes need to be made in business, industry and government use also. We need to stop lighting up the sky too.

                  • Nick G says:


                    That’s good info. But, it doesn’t change the fact that the primary food-energy consumer is home refrigeration.

                    Everyone focuses on the farm, which is the wrong place to look.

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    Really Nick, you think the primary food energy consumer is the home refrigerator?
                    The fossil fuel energy in food for me annually is 876 kwh. The home refrigerator uses less than 600 kwh per annum. Mine uses closer to 400 kwh. And one refrigerator can support food storage for a whole family.

                    And then there is all the wasted food.
                    Here is the waste list from NRDC
                    25 percent of all freshwater used in U.S.
                    4 percent of total U.S. oil consumption
                    $165 billion per year (more than $40 billion
                    from households)
                    $750 million per year just to dispose
                    of the food
                    33 million tons of landfill waste (leading
                    to greenhouse gas emissions)

                  • Nick G says:

                    The fossil fuel energy in food for me annually is 876 kwh.

                    How did you calculate that?

                    The home refrigerator uses less than 600 kwh per annum.

                    When you consider that most of that power came from thermal energy, and the ratio of heat energy to electrical power is 3 to one…the fridge takes a lot more power than anything else.

                    And then there is all the wasted food.

                    That’s not an energy input, it’s a driver of excess overall food production.

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    I am glad you asked how I calculated my annual fossil fuel energy in my annual food intake. I was off by an order of 10.
                    It should be 8760 kwh, not 876.

                    2000 calories per day X10 fossil fuel calories/ calorie X 365 days per year X 0.0012 kwh/ calorie = 8760 kwh fossil fuel energy/year
                    Which is more than an order of magnitude higher than the 380 to 600 kwh needed to run the refrigerator.

                    Not much really.

                    Next you said”And then there is all the wasted food.

                    That’s not an energy input, it’s a driver of excess overall food production”

                    Of course it is an energy input, all that waste is needed to produce the usable food, all of it takes energy input. When the system becomes more efficient, then it will need less energy.
                    The weak link in the system is the plants themselves which are only about 1 percent efficient. So if you count the solar input energy needed, well, the whole system is extremely inefficient. Barely viable.

                    Weeds are three times as efficient as food plants, maybe we should start making weeds that produce food and end up with a hardier and more efficient food production system, maybe twice as effective.

                    The other real fact is, that the refrigerators do not have enough insulation. With more insulation, they would be far more efficient.

                  • Nick G says:

                    10 fossil fuel calories/ calorie

                    Yes, but what’s the composition of that ratio of 10 FF calories per end-calorie?? Here’s a chart that says it’s 7.3:1, and 32% is home refrigeration and processing – When you consider that most of that power came from thermal energy, and the ratio of heat energy to electrical power is 3 to one, that rises to 59%. So, the fridge and the stove take a lot more power than anything else. And, I suspect it doesn’t include the fossil fuel required to drive to the grocery store and bring food home: two trips per week, maybe 10 miles per week at 22 MPG is 795 kWh per year.

                    So, the FF consumption isn’t on the farm, it’s after you pick it up, whether it’s from the grocer or farmer’s market.


                    Of course it is an energy input, all that waste is needed to produce the usable food, all of it takes energy input.

                    I agree that wasted food means wasted energy. The point is that waste is not an input, it’s a driver of the total output. However much waste there is, it doesn’t change the proportions of the various inputs, like fertilizer vs home refrigeration.

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    Nick, read my post. Less than 10 percent is home refrigeration. If you want to add in the portion of lost heat in the production of a portion of the electricity, please add it in for every other process from phosphate mining to transport to farming, to making fertilizer, warehousing, business office, retail, pesticides. All of it.

                  • Nick G says:


                    FWIW, electricity is unique: it’s conversion at around 1/3 efficiency is far lower than oil refining at 90%, for instance.

                    But, more importantly….I’ve lost track of what we’re arguing about. I was trying to point out that roughly 90% of what we might think of food “embedded energy” is outside the farm. That means that it’s not that hard to provide enough energy for food production.

                    What were you trying to figure out? What’s your goal in analyzing food energy?

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    Nick G
                    It all started when I compared how much energy it would take me to walk to get my groceries versus driving there and back.

                    Of course since I often grocery shop on my way back from somewhere else, almost no extra energy for transport is used to get my food. It was just a calculation. Real life is more complex.

                  • Nick G says:


                    Yeah, it’s complex. For instance, more exercise is good for you up to a certain point, so it doesn’t make sense to count the food required to fuel that exercise as a “cost”. OTOH, after a certain point the exercise has very low marginal benefit, so that starts to be something to consider if you really want to look at “system” energy requirements.

                • Ulenspiegel says:


                  as long as you do not have a mgic oven in your kitchen the cooking of food usually consumes much more energy than cooling. :-))

                  Cooling refrigerator + deep freezer <1.5 kWh/d; cooking ~5 kWh/d – that for a four person household with 100% eating at home, no cantine, mensa etc.

        • Fred Magyar says:

          Wimbi, Thank you sir, for helping put it all in perspective for us! And yes, you are right, more doing and less talking is what we need.

          • wimbi says:

            Fred. You know tons more than I ever will about resources on the web. Is there already somewhere that has a good compilation of possible solutions or methods of getting to them for all the plagues that ail us?

            Seems to me this is such an obvious need that it shoulda been done ten times over by now. I keep asking my local good people to dig some of it up and so far, not much.

            Always the same, talk talk talk about the problems. Nothing but little mumbles about solutions.

            I am fed up with endless recitals of the problems. I know, I know —- all that. So now what?

            • Jef says:

              Wimbi – There is one and only one thing we can do and that is less.

              Less flying.
              Less driving.
              Less consuming.
              Less mining.
              Less shipping.
              Less burning.
              Less polluting.
              Less manufacturing.
              Less procreating.
              Less energy use.
              and the list goes on and on….
              You get the idea.
              No one, I mean no one wants to hear that. Primarily because, as everyone knows that means less MONEY and if you don’t have much it means NO money and you and yours die.

              What you will hear is how we should ramp up everything, a Global Marshal plan or Manhattan project and build out/transition to a new and sustainable future which would absolutely seal our fate of human extinction.

              Bring on the refutation bots.

              • Nick G says:


                It’s far simple to eliminate your daily fuel consumption by driving an EV. Faster, easier.

                This urge to sacrifice, and give up everything seems to be a kind of Puritan thing. There’s a great quote: “Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

                ― H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy

                • Jef says:

                  By less I mean like 80% less.

                  The amount of energy and resources to replace even 25% of autos with eeevees is astronomical and not possible. Not to mention evs don’t solve the other 80% of energy use and pollution.

                  • Greenbub says:


                    “NEW DELHI: The government is working on a scheme to provide electric cars on zero down payment for which people can pay out of their savings on expensive fossil fuels, for becoming 100 per cent electric vehicle nation by 2030.”

                  • Nick G says:

                    By less I mean like 80% less.

                    An EV eliminates 100% of fuel consumption. An EREV like a Chevy Volt reduces 80-90%.

                    The amount of energy and resources to replace even 25% of autos with eeevees is astronomical and not possible.

                    EVs don’t take significantly more resources to produce than conventional ICE autos.

                    Not to mention evs don’t solve the other 80% of energy use and pollution.

                    They solve 50%-70% of oil.

                    I agree: they don’t solve problems like coal and NG power production. They’re an example. Other examples include wind and solar, which are cheaper and renewable.

                • Nathanael says:

                  What Nick G. said. On the same topic, Jef, go buy a copy of Isaac Asimov’s _The Gods Themselves_ — the novel makes a point about human psychology, specifically in the context of the energy industry. If you want results, use technology to improve people’s lives.

                  Some people always want to promote self-sacrifice, but *it’s not a systemic solution* — the guys who refuse to self-sacrifice will always ruin it for you. By contrast, offer a better option (EVs are simply better than gasmobiles) and even the most head-in-the-sand global warming denier will stop using gasoline.

                  Just pragmatism here.

                • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                  Leave the site for a few days and some of its members spit out the usual tripe…

                  Technology, such as for the sake of technology or undemocratically-achieved, elite-derived/-driven (mass-produced industrial) technology, is not necessarily the best, or even mediocre, technology, assuming it is any good at all.

                  Remember, folks, you live in a world not created by you, nor necessarily even in your size. Try that with clothes and see how happy you feel.

                  Thus, or for example, EV’s as some sort of ‘context-devoid magic-bullet tech’ won’t cut the mustard.

                  As for so-called renewables…

                  ” ‘projects are generally more likely to succeed if they have broad public support and the consent of local communities. This means giving communities both a say and a stake’. In countries such as Germany and Denmark many renewable projects are owned by communities, particularly through cooperative structures, and contribute significantly to overall levels of renewable energy deployment…” ~ Wikipedia

              • Bob Nickson says:

                Less flying, as we do now.
                Less driving, as we do now.
                Less consuming, as we do now.
                Less shipping, as we do now.
                Less burning.
                Less polluting.
                Less manufacturing, as we do now.
                Less procreating.
                more efficient, renewable energy and material use.

                A global plan to transition to a new and sustainable future.

                • wimbi says:

                  Right.. That’s my point. More often than not, doing less of what we are doing means freeing us up to be able to do more of what we should be doing, and what gives us real profit, not mere numbers in a bank.

                  In a previous existence, I went to a conference in LA, staying with a Caltech faculty family in Pasadena, and by choice, taking a city bus to the conference.

                  Always the only Anglo on the bus, I was given special attention from the Mexicans thereon.

                  On my left side sat a shapely young female, suggesting that she would be happy to offer even more special personal attention if I happened to be in the mood for a little casual fun of that kind.

                  On my right sat a dirt-encrusted laborer, telling me a long sad story full of detail on how tough it was to support his family back in his indian village, and how much he would prefer to be there than in the heat of the central valley.

                  Yet more evidence of how much better off we all would be if we more equitably distributed opportunity to merit.

                  So, on that trip, I learned far more on the bus than I did at the conference.—For damn near nothing out of pocket.

                  QED, more for less.

            • Jef says:

              wimbi said-“Always the same, talk talk talk about the problems. Nothing but little mumbles about solutions.”

              But what you mean is no one is giving you the fairy tale solutions that you want to hear.

              • wimbi says:

                Ok, ok, so now gimme the solutions I don’t want to hear, I’m all ears.

                • xt5 says:

                  “But what you mean is no one is giving you the fairy tale solutions that you want to hear.”

                  So what are the non “fairy tale solutions” ?

                  Wimbi is not looking for fairy tales. So what’s the sacrifice or trade offs ?

        • The key is to look at information and avoid being a sheeple. As it turns out, that AMS survey I linked shows I’m in pretty good company. It’s not as if my point of view is isolated. Maybe you need to review the source of your intoleranc, it could be simple ignorance.

          • Dennis Coyne says:

            Hi Fernando,

            Last time I checked, meteorologists study weather, we are interested in climate. I would pay more attention to physicists.


            • Synapsid says:


              Scratch a meteorologist, you find a physicist.

              Pretty much, anyway.

            • I would pay more attention to a survey of meteorologists. A physicist working on a chamber measuring neutron decay isn’t that much of an expert.

              I guess we are now pushing consensus PLUS shopping around for the community of experts who are supposed to have an opinion? What’s next? Only the data and papers which match your previous mindset are acceptable? Isn’t that more like….religion?

              • Nathanael says:

                Well, you’re a head-in-the-sand denier. Meteorologists (who aren’t experts on the climate) now generally acknowledge that climate change is real and is caused by human fossil fuel burning.

                But you like to cherry-pick and pick out only those outliers who support your view. You’re just like a religious fanatic.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Hi Fernando,

                Physicists study many things, including fluid dynamics. An understanding of the atmosphere and ocean is done best by geophysicists. Those are the people who build the models that the meteorologists use. I know that you probably understand this, but for those that get confused by your comments I wanted to point out that meteorology is just applied physics. Climatologists that build complex global climate models are often geophysicists.

                Climate and weather are not the same thing.

          • chilyb says:

            Hi Fernando,

            Since I was involved in the previous thread, I will offer my two cents here. Unless you are publishing peer reviewed research, the only thing us sheeple (i.e. non-climate scientists) can rely on is the scientific consensus, which is that climate change is man made and rapidly accelerating. I am always curious to hear other people’s opinions, but unless it is published scientific literature, that’s all it is. No offense. If you or Javier come across new peer reviewed literature (published in 2016) that shows that AGW is less of a threat than some are making it out to be, then by all means, post a link to it. I will certainly look at it with great interest. Not all of us are sitting around waiting for the rapture to come and take us to valhalla.

            Going back to the last thread, I am pretty sure most here are capable of critical thought. Personally I do not believe that climate scientists are spreading alarm to generate funding or for shits and giggles. There is plenty of funding available from those who would benefit from alternate findings, probably a lot more. And James Hansen can’t spend his riches in jail. He’s either delusional (per Javier) or he believes his work is important enough to support radical activism, putting his integrity and maybe even his life at risk. I think the one thing that we the sheeple can all agree on is that both possibilities are not good.

            • Javier says:


              There is all kind of scientists. Why don’t you start here?:

              Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about their data

              Many scientific “truths” are, in fact, false

              Why most published research findings are false

              Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science

              So if you think most published peer-reviewed science is part of the truth, welcome to the dark world of science. A part of it that we scientists know quite well but almost never talk about. Every scientists is usually working in a small part of science that he is an expert not only for knowing everything that has been researched and published about it but importantly also because they know what not to trust. It is often the case that published research cannot be reproduced, and as a PhD student I was taught by my advisor who I could trust and who I couldn’t in the field, and the importance of basing my science on experiments that I had done myself even if they had already been published.

              As a neutral part in climate (I don’t care one way or the other, as I don’t have a reputation to defend), I trust my analysis of the published evidence a lot more than I trust the opinion of climatologists. If the evidence does not support what they say, I do not care what they say.

              • Nick G says:

                Fossil fuel is expensive, polluting and dangerous.

                Fossil fuel creates so many problems that the proper public policy is to transition away from it as quickly as possible, regardless of climate change.

                This is the single most important question on this forum, I think: “Should we support public policy to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels?”

                The answer is yes. Right??

                • Javier says:

                  I already answered in the previous thread. I’ll copy:

                  Yes, Nick G. I agree on that.

                  Only one caveat. Let’s make sure we don’t blow up the global economy while doing it. The consequences could be much worse.

                  • Nick G says:

                    Yes, Nick G. I agree on that.

                    That’s great.

                    Only one caveat. Let’s make sure we don’t blow up the global economy while doing it.

                    That’s a big caveat, and unfortunately, it’s really an unrealistic idea that comes from FF industry misinformation (via the Koch brothers, mostly).

                    Fossil fuels are much more expensive than the alternatives.

                    For example, a Nissan Leaf is as cheap to buy AND OWN as a much inferior Nissan Versa.

                    Oil is famous for causing recessions – that certainly could be called “blowing up the economy”.

                  • Toolpush says:


                    I continue to see your claims, yes I know they are from Edmunds, that the Leaf is cheaper to own than the Versa.

                    I believe a few things need to be taken into account here.

                    1/ People seem to relate no gasoline,to zero energy cost. It appears in the US, this energy cost is around 10-12c /kWh. In Australia, we are talking more like 30c/kWh. Using the Aust Nissan web page calculator and using 7l/100km, which the Nissan ICE Pulsar consumes. We save $360/year. The Pulsar is certainly not the most fuel efficient vehicle in its class, as the Mazda 3, a larger car, gets 6l/100km. So the LEAF would save $210 /year over the Mazda 3.

                    Pulsar $23000
                    Mazada 3 $24000
                    LEAF $40000

                    It will take a lot of years to save that $16-17,000! I will give you the point of less maintenance, before that gets raised.

                    2/ The claim of BEVs are zero emissions, and far superior than an ICE.
                    Here a link that tells an interesting story, for Australia at least, which even challengers the warm fussy feeling of lower emissions.

                    Doing the sums
                    The BMW i3 has 18.8kWh of usable capacity and early testing indicates a 130km range in the default Comfort mode.

                    Based on average CO2 power emissions/kWh, sourced from http://www.environment.gov.au, completely recharging the battery will result in emissions of 22.2kg in Victoria, 16.2kg in NSW/ACT, 15.2kg in Queensland, 14.3kg in WA, 12.8kg in the NT, 11.5kg in SA and 3.8kg in Tasmania.

                    BMW’s 118i hatch has comparable size and acceleration and the 1.6-litre turbo engine uses 16.9kg of CO2 to travel the same distance. It costs $43,000 against $63,900 for the i3. Opt for the diesel-powered 118d and emissions drop to 15.5kg over 130km.

                    Another point I will give you. Zero tail pipe emissions take away local city pollution
                    But for CO2, it doesn’t matter where it is produced, it will still have the same effect, correct?

                    PS. The LEAF, is a small car, that traditionally Americans do not like to buy. I would have thought a more sensible approach to selling BEVs, would to make the BEV on a larger platform, then it would only be a matter of selling a different drive train, rather then a smaller car and a different drive train.

                  • wimbi says:

                    A relevant quote from a 4 year Leaf owner.

                    “It’s by far the best car we have ever had. I never have to worry about it starting in bad weather, I never need to stand in the freezing wind pumping gas into it, it is very quiet and solid on the road, and I never have any trouble going with the traffic.
                    And, it’s really nice to be able to creep up that slope to the garage when in the slush, and not worry about stalling the engine or slipping the wheels.
                    And, of course, it does the service I want almost all the time, trips to town and carrying my club members around. And when I need longer range, very seldom, I have no trouble swapping for a gas car from friend or family.

                    And, it didn’t cost as much as all my friends’ cars.”

                    Pretty solid vote, I’d say. And from a source locally famous for being known to speak only truth to power – my wife.

                  • Toolpush says:


                    I understand you have a very special setup at your place, and the LEAF obviously works for you.
                    I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the size of the LEAF. When ever I have suggested people/Americans should drive smaller cars, I have been howled down, as though I was challenging their manhood. So getting people into small cars in the US is the first challenge for saving FF.
                    As for the electric side, it seems to work well in the states at 10-12c /kWh. This is not the case in other countries where the cost of electricity approaches the cost of gasoline.
                    I thought the BMW example was interesting, where the diesel version produced less CO2 than the BEV, under Australian condition. So nothing can be taken for granted. The day of the BEV may come, but in Oz it doesn’t work at the moment.

                  • Nick G says:

                    Several good questions. I have time for the first, at this moment.

                    Expensive power in Australia. There’s an easy solution for most households: PV on the roof. It’s half the cost of utility power. That brings the cost of power down to around 15 cents per kWh, or 3 cents per km.

                    That restores the Leaf’s competitiveness.

                  • Nick G says:

                    And, of course, solar power is low CO2.

                    Studies like the one you found never deal with the fact that the utility grid’s power mix changes from hour to hour. EVs can be charged when wind or solar power are at their maximum. That minimizes CO2 and cost for the driver, and raises prices for renewable power sellers. It’s a win-win.

                    Finally, I agree: we need larger EVs – conventional car companies think of EVs as economy cars. That mistake illuminates their lack of understanding of EVs. That’s the genius of Tesla: start at the high end in size, power and price, establish the clear superiority of EVs in both cost AND performance (in that market segment), and then work your way down.

                • GoneFishing says:

                  Right now the EV is a great way to force more burning of coal and natural gas. As Nick is known to say, thermal power generation is only 30 percent efficient, so that pretty much negates most of the efficiency of EV’s and produces a lot of pollution, just elsewhere.
                  We better switch to wind and solar quicly or we are just fooling ourselves.

                  • sunnnv says:

                    The Union of Concerned Scientists says:
                    ” … Two-thirds of all Americans now live in areas where driving an EV produces fewer climate emissions than almost all comparable gasoline and gasoline hybrid cars—a fact attributable to more efficient EVs and an increasingly clean electricity grid.

                    But what are the global warming emissions of electric cars on a life cycle basis—from the manufacturing of the vehicle’s body and battery to its ultimate disposal and reuse? To answer this, the Union of Concerned Scientists undertook a comprehensive, two-year review of the climate emissions from vehicle production, operation, and disposal. We found that battery electric cars generate half the emissions of the average comparable gasoline car, even when pollution from battery manufacturing is accounted for. ”


                    Interactive tool for those in the US:

                    For a lot of the rest of the world, there’s this:

                    bottom line: EVs are as clean as the local power they’re charged with. In many places in the US, that means greener than using gasoline, even if some coal/natgas is burned instead.

                    On of the advantages of PV as a scalable distributed energy source, is that an individual can (usually, depending on local policy, roof access, etc.)
                    just install some PV on their roof or maybe a PV sunshade at work and cut the carbon emissions to minimum, as soon as they (1) choose and (2) can afford it (and it’s not that expensive), instead of waiting for the powers that be to green up the grid.

                  • wimbi says:

                    I had already bought a bargain over-supply of solar and had lots of extra, so the LEAF was not a hard choice.

                    Anyhow, most people I know have a small fraction of their budget going to electricity, so a bit more is nothing much.

                    And, most of my friends already used small cars- Civics or Fits, and so the LEAF size was no wrenching choice.

                    None of that is all that abnormal, so I would guess the immediate market for EV is not small, and the hold- back is simply lack of familiarity.

              • Nathanael says:

                As someone with no functioning intelligence outside a very narrow area, you should not trust your own “analysis”, Javier. This isn’t the only topic where you’re a crank, actually.

                I’m actually a *generalist* in science by training, wich I realize is quite rare.

                I know all about the level of reproducibilty in scientific papers; there are entire fields which are mostly bunk. I’ve analyzed the climate change data (which you obviously haven’t really done) and it’s not really disputable. The geological record is the most completely indisputable part of the data. You obviously don’t know enough to know what to trust in geology — probably because your geological training is nonexistent or insufficient. I do know enough.

                • Javier says:

                  Congratulations on your scientific training Nathanael.

                  How are you in reading comprehension? I have stated frequently that I do not dispute climate change data unless it is disputed in the scientific literature.

                  I do not dispute geological data either, so your post is wasted.

                  I might dispute the interpretation of the data if it promotes unfounded alarmism, unsupported by the data. That such claims cannot be extracted from the evidence is evident to anybody. And in some cases, like sea level rise, or methane, even the IPCC agrees with me.

                  • Javier said:

                    “I have stated frequently that I do not dispute climate change data unless it is disputed in the scientific literature.”

                    So you can’t think for yourself, eh?

                    That’s essentially how these deniers operate. They follow the news and blindly pledge their allegiance to any negative finding that crops up.

                  • Javier says:

                    Since I don’t do research on climate science, I trust the data and evidence that is being published by climate researchers unless challenged by other climate researchers.

                    According to you I shouldn’t do this, right? Well, that is where you get lost. Unless you can demonstrate that somebody’s data or evidence is incorrect you cannot challenge it.

                    You have a very high opinion of yourself, and despite not having published anything on climate change you challenge the data and evidence from climate scientists you disagree, showing nothing but your own opinion, while at the same time you criticize me for using published scientific literature instead of my opinion.

                    I am very surprised at the way you see science. You see yourself under a very positive light and probably are very surprised that your research has a lot less impact than the research from scientists you have a very low opinion. Showing off at internet forums is unlikely to cure you.

                  • Javier,
                    Since you are trying to tarnish my reputation, the challenge is on you to try to find something wrong with my recent model for QBO.


                    This shouldn’t be hard for you to challenge, and then you will have some proof to show that all I am doing is spouting opinion.

                  • Javier says:


                    “Since you are trying to tarnish my reputation”

                    You are the one that started this attacking me, when I had only showed you respect. Now you are the one not liking being at the receiving end. This will stop the moment you stop, since I only respond to attacks.

                    I deserve the same respect as anybody else, and if you don’t like my opinions of course you are welcome to discuss them and criticize them, but not me.

                    And no, I don’t have to study your QBO-ENSO model in detail. It is neither my job nor my specialty.

                  • Javier: “And no, I don’t have to study your QBO-ENSO model in detail. It is neither my job nor my specialty.”

                    It’s clear that none of this specific topic of climate change is your specialty. You can’t even respond to the calibration of the C isotope over thousands of years.

            • I disagree. I’m an engineer and I supervised what you call “climate scientists” (we called them something else). My job description included using my brain to judge their work. Most of what we did wasn’t published (we thought it gave us a strategic advantage).

              So you see, some of us don’t gladly wear that sheeple hat you like to wear. There’s a whole world out here where we adults do judge scientists, give them raises, fire them, give them pizza, hold their hands, chide them for lack of teamwork, approve their travel to conferences, and even sign off on what they try to publish.

              • chilyb says:

                Hi Javier and Fernando,

                Give them pizza? Wow, you guys are such pretentious assholes. That was really impressive! hahaha

                Like I said before, I’ll look at any link to new research that gets posted. I specified peer-reviewed earlier because I’m not going to waste my time reading anyone’s personal blog entries. I don’t know what you guys do all day, but the rest of us don’t have time to personally validate other people’s work outside their field of research. So it’s the scientific consensus that matters. Please point towards something published after 2015 by anyone with credibility that says otherwise. If the point that you are trying to make is there is no one with credibility, then it’s impossible to take anything you say seriously.

                • Javier says:

                  Every one of these recent articles takes a shot, either to climate alarmism or to the CO2 hypothesis.

                  Has there been a hiatus? K. Trenberth 2015 Science 14 Vol. 349 no. 6249 pp. 691-692

                  His bottom line: “The increasing gap between model expectations and observed temperatures provides further grounds for concluding that there has been a hiatus.”

                  Fifteen years of ocean observations with the global Argo array. Riser et al. 2016. Nature Climate Change 6, 145-153.
                  This article shows (figure 5) that ocean warming has been linear since 1970 and that during the Argo era (since 2006) all ocean warming has taken place between 20°S-60°S, while the rest of the oceans have not warmed.

                  Elevated CO2 as a driver of global dryland greening
                  Lu et al. 2016. Scientific Reports 6, 20716
                  “Based on 1705 field measurements from 21 distinct sites, a consistent and statistically significant increase in the availability of soil water (11%) was observed under elevated CO2 treatments in both drylands and non-drylands, with a statistically stronger response over drylands (17% vs. 9%).”

                  A signal of persistent Atlantic multidecadal variability in Arctic sea ice M.W. Miles et al. 2014. Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 463–469.

                  “We establish a signal of pervasive and persistent multidecadal (~60–90 year) fluctuations… Covariability between sea ice and Atlantic multidecadal variability as represented by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index is evident during the instrumental record. This observational evidence supports recent modeling studies that have suggested that Arctic sea ice is intrinsically linked to Atlantic multidecadal variability.
                  Given the demonstrated covariability between sea ice and the AMO, it follows that a change to a negative AMO phase in the coming decade(s) could —to some degree— temporarily ameliorate the strongly negative recent sea-ice trends.”

                  Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses. Journal of Glaciology, Zwally, H.J. et al. 2015

                  A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

                  The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
                  “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

                  The Holocene temperature conundrum. Liu et al., 2014
                  climate models based on current theory predict that the Holocene should have seen a progressive warming, while the reconstructions and tons of evidence indicate that the Holocene has undergo a progressive cooling. This research indicates that there is something wrong with the models.

                  The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates. Lewis N, Curry JA 2015 Clim. Dyn. 45, 3, 1009-1023

                  They take the IPCC new numbers for forcings and heat uptake to derive a much smaller Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity.

                  A lower and more constrained estimate of climate sensitivity using updated observations and detailed radiative forcing time series. Skeie RB, et al. 2014 Earth Syst Dynam 5:139–175

                  Observed decline of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation 2004–2012. Smeed et al. 2014 Ocean Sci., 10, 29–38.

                  “We have shown that there was a slowdown in the AMOC transport between 2004 and 2012 amounting to an average of −0.54 Sv yr−1 at 26°N … This trend is an order of magnitude larger than that predicted by climate models associated with global climate change scenarios, suggesting that this decrease represents decadal variability in the AMOC system rather than a response to climate change.”

                  • chilyb says:

                    Thank you. Keep them coming.

                  • chilyb says:

                    Welcome to the dark world of science. Here is an excerpt from Jim White’s presentation where he relates paleoclimate temperature shifts to what could happen today. If large temperature swings have happened in the past in a short period of time, is it possible that they can happen today?



                  • sunnnv says:

                    Hah – Javier cherry picks.

                    re: http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~klinck/Reprints/PDF/trenberthScience15.pdf

                    The full paragraph of the alleged “bottom line” is (the 3rd paragraph of the article):
                    “Another reason to think there had been a hiatus in the rise of GMST comes from comparing model expectations and obser- vations. Human activities are causing in- creases in heat-trapping greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels (4). These increases are expected to cause rising atmospheric temperatures. At- mospheric aerosols, mostly from fossil fuel combustion, are expected to reduce this rise to some extent. The increasing gap between model expectations and observed temperatures provides further grounds for concluding that there has been a hiatus.”

                    He’s talking about pro and con arguments of a hiatus, not coming to a conclusion.

                    Trenberth’s “bottom line” is in the last paragraph:
                    “… The com- bination of decadal variability and a trend from increasing greenhouse gases makes the GMST record more like a rising stair- case than a monotonic rise. As greenhouse gas concentrations rise further, a negative decadal trend in GMST becomes less likely (13). But there will be fluctuations in rates of warming and big regional variations associated with natural variability. It is im- portant to expect these and plan for them. ”

                    No ding to “alarmism”, and certainly not to CO2 is here in fact.

                    Not wasting my time with the rest.

                  • Javier says:


                    Jim White is terribly misleading in his talk. Bollinger initiation and Younger Dryas termination are thought to be Dansgaard-Oeschger events. See for example:
                    Rahmstorf, S. 2003. Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30 1510-1514.

                    What he is doing is the equivalent of scaring children with Tyrannosaurus Rex attacks. Very scary except Tyrannosaurus Rex no longer exists. Dansgaard-Oeschger events only take place during glacial periods and they require very specific conditions that do not exist during interglacials, not even during the entire glacial period. If you want to know them, you can start here:

                    Dokken T.M. et al. 2013. Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles: Interactions between ocean and sea ice intrinsic to the Nordic seas. Paleoceanography 28 491-502.

                    If we were in a glacial period perhaps we should be worried about a D-O event if we hadn’t had one for about 1450 years, but perhaps under those conditions we would actually welcome the warming that a D-O event brings to the northern hemisphere.

                    Climatologists are very responsible for letting scientists like Jim White going around spreading alarmism about Dansgaard-Oeschger events that cannot take place under interglacial conditions, and Jim White is making a fool of himself to anybody that is up to date with the bibliography for suggesting that they could.

                  • Javier says:


                    Trenberth concludes that the hiatus is real, that there is an increasing gap between model expectations and observed temperatures, and that the GMST record increases more like a rising staircase than a monotonic rise.

                    You may not be able to extract the right conclusion that any projection that does not take into account this evidence and projects a monotonic rise is going to fail. Alarmism is based of these type of scenarios including accelerations that are not being observed. A more realistic scenario with multidecadal pauses in warming leads to a much more moderate future warming.

                    When reading science you have to concentrate in the evidence presented, not in the opinion of the author. If truthful and well researched, the evidence will stand the pass of time, while opinions are subject to interpretations and might and often do change with time.

                  • sunnnv said:
                    “Not wasting my time with the rest.”

                    Agree. Javier is on a Gish Gallop. Let him ride into the sunset.

                    Who was that guy that eventually left this comment forum recently after calling everyone here “greens”, I think it was Glenn Stehle. Well, he has found a new home with the AGW deniers at the Climate Etc blog.

                    Eventually Javier will make his way over there as well.

                  • Nathanael says:

                    Nice pile of bullshit.

                    For those of us who know how to evaluate scientific papers — according to the criteria Javier alluded to — a couple of these are the bunkum type of papers.

                    More disturbing are the papers which are perfectly good, but *support the consensus understanding of climate change caused by CO2 emissions*, papers which you have *mischaracterized* for your own malicious purposes.

                    This dishonest mischaracterization and cherrypicking makes you untrustworthy, Javier. And someone who is untrustworthy is not a scientist, regardless of what field he gets paid to work in.

                  • Javier says:


                    That’s your opinion. I have not mischaracterized anything. You seem to not have read or understood what I said:

                    “Every one of these recent articles takes a shot, either to climate alarmism or to the CO2 hypothesis”

                    The evidence presented in those articles does not support alarmism even if some of their authors do. Which of those articles contains evidence that supports alarmism? It is very easy to accuse someone of dishonesty, but it is impossible to prove it if that person has been honest.

                    You will have to post the evidence, not the authors opinion, so it can be discussed to see if it supports alarmism. I don’t think you can do that.

                  • I said:

                    “… he has found a new home with the AGW deniers at the Climate Etc blog.

                    Eventually Javier will make his way over there as well.”

                    Well, what do you know, the chicken has gone home to roost, just as I predicted — and worse yet, to the loony bin known as WUWT


                    joining his buddy Fernando.

                  • Javier says:

                    Yes, WebHubTelescope,

                    I sometimes participate in some articles posted on WUWT. Funnily over there I am considered an alarmist because I defend that the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic in nature and that the increase in CO2 has produced measurable global warming. See for example:


                    So I am called a climate alarmist there and a climate denier here. That’s what one gets for sticking to the evidence, and goes to show how similarly intolerant people at both ends are.

                  • So you are an argumentative contrarian instead of a denier. A contrarian will change his colors just to get a rise out of others.

                    And you still can’t respond to the chart you posted where I challenged you “Each of the last 2 lines that you show in that chart states 3.0 C for doubling of CO2″

                  • Javier says:

                    No, WebHubTelescope,

                    I defend what scientific evidence supports:

                    – That global warming is real and has been taking place for several centuries.
                    – That the recent increase in CO2 is of anthropogenic origin, mainly from burning fossil fuels.
                    – That the increase in CO2 has contributed to global warming.
                    – That the contribution from GHGs has not enhanced natural global warming enough to lead to a dangerous warming within the 21st century.
                    – That global warming has overall been very beneficial to humanity and most species and so the benefits are tangible while the dangers remain hypothetical.
                    – That no clear danger will come from the moderate increase in global temperatures that is expected if global warming continues during the 21st century.
                    – That the limitations in fossil fuels that we face will prevent CO2 from going above what is so far a beneficial increase, so no measures are required nor will they have any impact on temperatures if implemented.

                    Enough to be attacked by both sides, those that believe that global warming will one day turn catastrophic and those that believe global warming is not real or that CO2 does not contribute to it. Obfuscation against science is a very old story.

                    I responded to that chart question here:

                  • Javier sure is opinionated with respect to his personal beliefs on how AGW will turn out. Gee, I probably have not cumulatively gave that many opinions disguised as fact since I started blogging in 2004.

                    Based on working out the instrumental evidence, both Dennis Coyne and I get a value above 2C for effective TCR, and that will stretch to an ECS of 3C based on the land warming.


                  • Javier says:


                    I suppose you base your belief in dangerous warming in a high value of TCR and ECS. This is a highly controversial issue between experts, that has not been resolved after more than 30 years.

                    The Otto et al., 2013 paper that I assume you know was signed by 16 authors of which most of them were lead or co-lead authors for IPCC AR5 report chapters relevant for Climate Sensitivity. They clearly disagree with Dennis and you as they give a best estimate of ECS at around 2°C. It is possible but unlikely that Dennis and you are correct and they are wrong.

                    Otto, A., Otto, F.E., Boucher, O., Church, J., Hegerl, G., Forster, P.M., Gillett, N.P., Gregory, J., Johnson, G.C., Knutti, R., Lewis, N., Lohmann, U., Marotzke, J., Myhre, G., Shindell, D., & Allen, M.R. 2013. Energy budget constraints on climate response. Nature Geoscience, 6(6), pp.415-416.

                  • Nick G says:

                    This letter seems to be based on an energy budget. This sounds like the same thing as “depleting fossil fuel”.

                    Seems like there are two scenarios: 1) we have lots of FF, so we’re in danger of climate chaos, and 2) we don’t have lots of FF, so we’re in danger of disruptive loss of energy.

                    Seems like both scenarios demand the same policy response: transitioning away from FF ASAP. To whatever extent one scenario is wrong, the other is strengthened.


                  • Nick G says:

                    This letter seems to be based on an energy budget. This sounds like the same thing as “depleting fossil fuel”.

                    Seems like there are two scenarios: 1) we have lots of FF, so we’re in danger of climate chaos, and 2) we don’t have lots of FF, so we’re in danger of disruptive loss of energy.

                    Seems like both scenarios demand the same policy response: transitioning away from FF as quickly as possible.


                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Javier,

                    Let’s take the 2 C ECS and note that we are already almost 1 C above the 1850-1900 average temperature. The Atmospheric CO2 was about 290 ppm during that period and is about 400 ppm now. The ECS of 2 C suggests about 0.92C of warming for a rise in CO2 from 290 to 400 ppm. A carbon emissions total of 1200 Gt will result in 515 ppm of CO2, which would be 1.65 C of warming. There is uncertainty in the estimate and 3C is still in the 17% to 83% confidence interval, so climate change might be less of a concern if my medium estimates (rather than the high estimates) are correct.

                    In any case the solution to the potential problem of climate change and the very likely problem of limited fossil fuels is the same. Transition to wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear power, it will also be less disruptive to the World economy if we begin this transition before shortages of fossil fuels become a problem.

                    It has the added benefit of reducing air pollution.

                  • Javier said :


                    I suppose you base your belief in dangerous warming in a high value of TCR and ECS. “

                    I don’t have beliefs when it comes to science. Science is not about beliefs. Go ahead and try to find any place I have summoned the “doom” word since I started blogging.

                    All I am doing is looking at simplifying earth sciences and geophysics, unlike the agenda-driven opinions that you are trying to pawn off as fact.

                    For example, how is it “alarmist” when I model the physics behind QBO? Or take the temperature data and fit that to the consensus CO2 TCR model?

                • Peer reviewed is hogwash. I can tell you are a subject matter virgin.

                  • George Kaplan says:

                    Nothing is going to be perfect. Like democracy it is the least bad option. What would you suggest instead?

          • Fred Magyar says:

            As it turns out, that AMS survey I linked shows I’m in pretty good company.

            You mean you agree with these guys?

            A large majority of AMS members indicated that human activity is causing at least a portion of the changes in the climate over the past 50 years.

            That’s nice!

            However Dennis’ point down thread, about meterologists vs physicists, while well taken, doesn’t address much of the science that I personally spend much more time reading. Papers from biologists and especially ecologists. Because ecosystems are where the rubber of climate change really hits the road.

            Maybe you need to review the source of your intoleranc, it could be simple ignorance.

            Pot calling kettle black?! Or is it Dunning Kruger? Point is, I have yet to meet too many engineers who have a good enough grasp of systems in the biological sciences to be able to converse knowledgeably on this topic… Perhaps it is you that is the ignorant and intolerant one,eh?

            • Sure do, Fred. Most of you start off with the insults before you try to comprehend what I’m writing. I guess some people don’t do nuances. I happen to line up with the middlish 30 %. However, that survey is somewhat flawed.

              For example, I focus on issues such as transient climate sensitivity, but the survey didn’t try to home in on technical issues.

              • Fred Magyar says:

                Fernando, you were the one who said this to me first:

                Maybe you need to review the source of your intoleranc, it could be simple ignorance.

                Perhaps you do not consider that insulting? Because I certainly do. At the very least it is condescending if nothing else.

                • I apologize. To me all of you Homo sapiens look the same.

                  Whoever does it, they should drop the “denier” crap. It’s a sign of intolerance.

                  • chilyb says:

                    Fernando said:

                    “I apologize. To me all of you Homo sapiens look the same.”

                    I really hope you are writing all this from a $30 million dollar yacht anchored somewhere in the Caribbean. It would really take your narcissism to the next level.

                  • Nathanael says:

                    “Denier” is the correct scientific term for someone who has seen the overwhelming masses of evidence and simply refuses to believe it, due to fact-free religious convictions. That’s what you are, Fernando: you’re a denier.

                    You’re free to join us in reality any time.

                  • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                    I agree. Stick with the behavior, rather than the person, so, denialism or denying or somesuch. It’s not that hard.
                    So, for example, if you think the person is lying (maybe all the time), don’t call them a liar, say that they are lying or even that they keep doing so and you don’t like it and think it’s wrong or something.

                  • Javier says:

                    Nathanael and Caelan,

                    You seem to ignore that one can only deny something that has already happened. That is, something from the past. It is impossible to deny something in the future because the future is unknown and you can only deny things that are certain.

                    So if I am skeptic that dramatic climate scenarios predicted by some scientists are going to actually take place, I am not denying anything. They could be wrong.

                    I mean, it is your language, but you should know the proper use of its words.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Fernando,

                    I never use “denier” to refer those who are skeptical about the severity of climate change.

                    Note however that terms like “alarmist” are similar in referring to those who disagree with your take on climate change. These are just “names” that people like to use to refer to the “other” side.

                    They create some heat, but very little light.

                    I would prefer enlightened discussion and think the name calling should be kept to a minimum.

                  • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                    Javier, I am not talking about that. I am merely suggesting what it is that I’ve suggested, and which you would seem to do well to go back and read again. But this seems like par for the course with you that others have suggested.

                    In any case, your presence here has not seemed to have contributed to much in the way of clarity or reassurance, has it?
                    If anything, it seems to have further muddied the issues. Is that what you are trying to do? Because maybe it is working.
                    And unless I’ve missed your ‘personal unveiling’ hereon, you continue to hide behind the mud…
                    Has The Oil Drum, for example, ever published an article from someone anonymous to the general readership?
                    You quote known scientists and their work all the time, yes? Why bother? How about quoting anonymous sources and none of their work and see how far that gets you? That way, over time, we might have ‘no ones talking about nothing we know about’.
                    And then it might be back to the tribe/band and who we know. Reattachment to people and community again. So that we can knock on their mud hut and have them answer for something they suggested that didn’t work and actually created more of a disaster than anything. Break out the tar and feathers.

                    Anyway, one would think that one would have the balls, if not the integrity, to be willing to stand behind their contentions rather than cower in the shadows, (maybe aided behind a pledge of anonymity granted by POB). That way, at the very least, there’s someone relatively accountable who might have a lot to answer for should things go awry and/or against what they’ve been arguing about, assuming it isn’t already happening.

                  • Caelan MacIntyre says:
        • Caelan MacIntyre says:

          Agreed, Wimbi.
          Indeed we have bigger drops in the ocean to worry and do things about.

      • Javier says:

        But Fred, on oil you are doing exactly what I am doing on climate. You are looking at the data and the evidence published by official sources and reaching your own conclusions, rather than relying on the opinion of well known experts like Daniel Yergin, aren’t you?

        Yet you are not a world recognized expert in oil. And you are listening to experts whose opinion goes against world consensus, like Ron Patterson, AlexS, Shallow Sand, and Enno Peters. This is an oil skeptics forum dedicated to extract the truth from the data and available evidence, ignoring the predictions from official sources.

        There is no difference between what I do with climate and what the rest do with oil. I should get more understanding here than in other places. I am here to do with oil what I do with climate, to get to the bottom of it by looking at the data. I do not come here to preach about climate unlike others. I do not start threads on climate, just respond to them because I have knowledge about the matter.

        If you do not want to do with climate what you do with oil, that’s ok, but why do you think it should be left to experts? You are not leaving the oil issue to the experts.

        • Tell him to read the story of the Great Missoula Flood, and what happened to THAT consensus. 🤓

          • Javier says:

            Consensus means nothing in science, Fernando. Any new hypothesis goes against the consensus on the previous one. Climatologists are for the most part heavily invested in the CO2 hypothesis. It is curious to see some of them warning about the dangers of the warming while probably secretly hoping that the warming continues so they are not proven wrong. I bet some are desperate for a reduction in emissions just in case global warming turns into cooling while emissions are still increasing. Talk about nightmare scenarios.

            • Javier said:

              “Consensus means nothing in science, … ”

              OK, then you don’t believe in the peer-review system, which is based on consensus by the reviewers on whether to accept a paper for publication.

              Therefore you have to take my model of the QBO on its own terms, without the benefit of the peer-review system. I haven’t published it yet but surely you can tell that it is correct based on my findings, can’t you?


              how can you argue with this?


              Or are you a hypocrite and demand consensus only when it fits your ideology?

              • Javier says:

                You don’t seem to understand the basis of peer-review. The referees do not have to agree or be in a consensus with what the article says to recommend its publication. They just have to think that the article has merit, does not contain mistakes, and deserves publication. There is a lot of freedom in the discussion to expose the authors ideas even if unsupported by data. Everybody has the right to propose hypotheses and even if a referee thinks they will turn out to be incorrect that is not a reason to reject a paper.

                Every new hypothesis is published against the consensus on the old.

                And I don’t have much interest in your ENSO-QBO relation.

                • Watch Javier reverse his opinion so fast he gave himself whiplash.

                  From this:
                  “Consensus means nothing in science”

                  To this:
                  “Every new hypothesis is published against the consensus on the old.”

                  LOL, all he deals with is rhetoric. Shares a lot with Fernando — its better to sound good than to make any sense.

                  • Javier says:

                    One is a consequence of the other. It seems that you are not able to make the connection. Peer review, if working properly, should not affect neither consensus building nor consensus challenging.

                  • Javier said: “Peer review, if working properly, should not affect neither consensus building nor consensus challenging.”

                    I am beginning to agree with other commenters that you are here for comic relief. Kind of a HAL 9000 spouting pablum.

                    BTW, you placed double negatives in that sentence, ha ha, so you probably don’t even know what you are saying yourself. For you evidently, just as long as it sounds good.

              • D. Graham says:

                Consider this as far as the peer review system and the preciousness of consensus within the system is concerned: if someone, or some entity, is going to pay you real money — indeed, sometimes even real large amounts of money — to “study” something as big as global warming, you’re going to know full well that if you want the funding to keep on coming, you better find “proof” of what you are studying, so as perpetuate the agendas of those supplying the funding. To the root of the matter, this condition is called “greed,” and all humans are susceptible, even well-educated, well-greased, scientists.

                As for those funding this perverted form of the scientific method, their concern mostly revolves around totalitarianism. The political elite in particular want total control over every aspect of our lives, including (but not limited to) telling us what we can eat, where we can live, what we can drive, how we can exercise our freedoms, etc. Nonetheless, people wouldn’t willingly become subjects to the whims of totalitarians, so they instead have to go and hype up specific crises (such as global warming) and create divisive paranoia within society to get the people in line.

                • Fred Magyar says:

                  As for those funding this perverted form of the scientific method, their concern mostly revolves around totalitarianism.

                  You mean like the Koch brothers? If I were a climate scientist looking to make the big bucks I wouldn’t waste my time with some dinky research institution. I would go work for them and the fossil fuel lobby!

                  • Javier says:


                    You are quickly falling prey to unjustified alarmism. Arctic sea ice is certainly very low, but not in free fall. There is a long cyclic component to Arctic sea ice. And Arctic glaciers are also driven by periodic changes.

                    A.A. Bjørk et al., An aerial view of 80 years of climate-related glacier fluctuations in southeast Greenland. Nature Geoscience 5, 427–432 (2012).

                    Here we present a unique record that documents the frontal positions for 132 southeast Greenlandic glaciers from rediscovered historical aerial imagery beginning in the early 1930s. Furthermore, the recent retreat was matched in its vigour during a period of warming in the 1930s with comparable increases in air temperature. We show that many land-terminating glaciers underwent a more rapid retreat in the 1930s than in the 2000s, whereas marine-terminating glaciers retreated more rapidly during the recent warming.

                  • chilyb says:

                    Hi Javier,

                    Based on the abstract, it sounds like an interesting paper. Glaciers must be very sensitive to temperature. Do you think there could have been more ice to melt back in the 1930s? Perhaps ice that was also less stable? If I have some spare time at work this week, I will pull the reference and take a look.

                    I also just came across this Washington post article that discusses a new study published in Nature Geoscience. They claim, based on observational measurements, that the permafrost is melting faster than models predict. I apologize in advance if the alarmist tone puts you off, I didn’t write the article! I look forward to your thoughts on the study.


                  • Javier says:


                    Certainly it doesn’t sound very encouraging for the permafrost. The important thing is not how it does respect to models, since we are used to models being wrong, but what are the consequences of this top melting and how does it change from year to year. Apparently the melting of the top permafrost happens every year, and then it refreezes. If the situation is changing and it is producing floodings unaccounted for and CO2 and CH4 emissions we have to find out.

                    We do follow CO2 and CH4 emissions by satellite, and so far the contribution of the Arctic is very small, almost undetectable.

                    One thing that we all agree on is that the planet is warming, and therefore we should expect that sea ice melts, glaciers reduce, permafrost thaws and sea level rises, because this is the type of things that happen when the planet warms. Anybody expecting the opposite or being surprised by it is unrealistic. But so far the warming has not been dangerous and science has failed to produce evidence that it should become dangerous in the near term despite looking intensely for it. In the long term we will not have fossil fuels.

                  • chilyb says:

                    For what it’s worth, this just came out today – a record low arctic sea ice extent:


                    BOULDER, Colo, March 28, 2016—Arctic sea ice was at a record low maximum extent for the second straight year, according to scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and NASA.

                    “I’ve never seen such a warm, crazy winter in the Arctic,” said NSIDC director Mark Serreze. “The heat was relentless.” Air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean for the months of December, January and February were 2 to 6 degrees Celsius (4 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit) above average in nearly every region.

                  • Javier says:

                    That depends what database you check, chilyb,

                    According to EUMETSAT Ocean and Sea Ice Satellite Application Facility (OSI SAF) of the Norwegian and Danish Meteorological Institutes, March 2016 is the fifth lowest maximum behind 2006, 2007, 2011 and 2015.

                    Arctic sea ice has been variable but has not diminished significantly since 2006, that is for the last 10 years. That could be newsworthy but apparently nobody wants to publish that Arctic sea ice has been holding up for a decade. They are only interested in negative records, even if they are not confirmed by other scientists researching the same.

                  • Nick G says:

                    Arctic sea ice has been variable but has not diminished significantly since 2006

                    The authors of the 3rd and 4th charts on that page don’t seem to agree. It seems clear they’d argue that the appearance of a “pause” is due to a random outlier around 2006.

                    Remember, humans are way too good at finding patterns that really aren’t there…

                  • Javier says:

                    Nick G.,

                    That Arctic sea ice has been variable but has not diminished significantly since 2006 is a fact. You cannot disagree with facts.

                    Now, some people might think that they know what is going to happen next, but that is a delusion. The future is unknown. Arctic sea ice, as many things in the natural world exhibits a cyclic component associated to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. We know that between 1945 and 1975 Arctic sea ice expanded after a significant decrease in the 1930’s. Satellite observations only include since 1979, so we are being fooled into thinking that this is a lineal decrease when in reality we are only watching the decline phase of a longer cycle.

                    So it is not as clear cut as many people think. Arctic sea ice might have changed phase and that might be why it has not declined in the past 10 years. You can predict a continuation of the 35 years declining trend or you can predict a continuation of the 10 years stable trend, and only time will tell which one is correct.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Javier,

                    How do you know when you are cherry picking?

                    Try the trend from 2005 and from 2007, if it is significantly different from the 2006 data point, then you have a fact that has been “cherry picked”.

                    I called you on this before, sorry I just don’t buy the, “I am only interested in the last 10 years”. Doesn’t really hold much water in my opinion.

                  • Javier says:


                    When you have information that what you are contemplating is a periodic phenomenon with an average duration of 90 years (~60 years in the 20th century), and you know you have been observing the descending phase for over 30 years, then you are expecting a low, not cherry picking one.

                    So far the observation is consistent with the hypothesis. This low could have been predicted from theory if research into alternative explanations for Arctic sea ice melting had been pursued and funded before it took place.

                    So it is not cherry picked, it is hypothesis driven. Of course the hypothesis could be wrong. Time will tell.

                    Source: A signal of persistent Atlantic multidecadal variability in Arctic sea ice. Miles, M.W. et al., 2014. Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 463–469.

                    To see the graph bigger right click on it or go to the paper.

                  • chilyb says:

                    There are several ways to measure the sea ice. I am actually much more interested in the markedly above average temperatures. Is that up for debate as well? We have already established that the ice and permafrost are very sensitive to temperature.

                  • Javier says:

                    Sure Chilyb,

                    What do you want to debate about temperatures?

                  • chilyb says:

                    “Air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean for the months of December, January and February were 2 to 6 degrees Celsius (4 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit) above average in nearly every region.”

                  • Javier says:

                    It is probably true. Although we are not measuring temperatures in the Arctic except in a few spots, and the temperatures over there are usually the product of a statistical procedure called infilling, we do know that El Niño peaked in early December and temperatures have been abnormally high during the entire winter almost everywhere. And temperatures tend to vary a lot more at high latitudes than in the tropics.

                    We have to be aware that no matter that increase, temperatures are so low during the winter in the Arctic, that they are still well below freezing point despite the increase. So this is probably not the cause of the reduced sea ice. It is more probably due to warmer surface currents that could have been affected also by El Niño.

                    A lower maximum sea ice in march also does not mean a lower minimum in September. It could be that it actually produces a higher minimum in September. Ice acts as an insulator, so less sea ice in the winter means that the Arctic ocean looses more heat to the atmosphere.

                    El Niño is considered natural variability, and so what we are seeing this year in the Arctic could also be considered natural variability. We will know better after the Pacific returns to neutral condition.

                  • Here is what happens when you let biologists do climate science research:

                    Quantification of the Diminishing Earth’s Magnetic Dipole Intensity and Geomagnetic Activity as the Causal Source for Global Warming within the Oceans and Atmosphere

                    From the abstract:

                    “These results indicated that the increase in CO2 and global temperatures are primarily caused by major geophysical factors, particularly the diminishing total geomagnetic field strength and increased geomagnetic activity, but not by human activities. Strategies for adapting to climate change because of these powerful variables may differ from those that assume exclusive anthropomorphic causes.”


                    Make no mistake, guys like Javier and these clowns either treat this topic much too casually, or are way over their heads.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Javier,

                    Nice move changing the subject.

                    The specific claim that Arctic sea ice extent has not changes since 2006 though factually correct is a case of cherry picking.

                    What has the change been since 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008? If the change from 2006 is very different from the others, it is a case of cherry picking pure and simple. You can claim that you only are interested in the most recent 10 years. I would ask what is so special about the most recent 10 years?

                  • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                    What?! Javier cherrypicking!?

                  • Hopefully Javier decides to permanently migrate to WUWT where he will feel more at home. They love cherry-picking and charts without units over there.

              • I don’t believe the peer review system in general gives any assurance the content is sound or boilerplate. The Cook paper made it through peer review. MBH97 made it through peer review. Neither of these is credible.

                • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                  If all our ‘peers’ (specifically that broadcast themselves as scientists) and their research are relatively anonymous (like behind gatekeepers and/or proprietary, and/or with single/fake names, etc.) then, what peers? Where are they? I don’t know. Did you look under the bed?

                  If you somehow ‘found’ them, what did you find out about their science research or practice and/or what is relevant vis-a-vis what they are talking about behind their cloak of relative anonymity? Is history and context important? Fool me once, shame on you?

                  One of the nice things about Free/Libre/Open Source Software, incidentally, is that the code is available to all, so anyone can evaluate and improve it, and come to a clearer understanding about how the software is running and will run.

        • Javier said:

          “There is no difference between what I do with climate and what the rest do with oil. “

          Well, I do analysis of both and based on your contributions, I can safely say that you know neither topic.

          • Javier says:

            I don’t care too much about your opinion, WebHubTelescope. Based on your contributions I don’t think your analysis is taking you to the right answers in neither. And you show a lack of knowledge about many climate issues that indicates that out of your pretty limited interest you know little.

            • Well Javier, you tend to put all this garbage out there and then run away when challenged on it.

              You still haven’t responded to my challenge on why you were only using the flat part of this isotope calibration:


              It’s a most egregious case of cherry-picking deception that you laid out there Javier.

              • Javier says:

                What challenge?

                Your accusations are as absurd as your opinions. I did not cherry pick any data. If you have an issue with a graph from a peer-reviewed article, take it to the authors or the editor.

                • Look at Javier act dumb. He claimed a transitive result between Carbon and Oxygen isotope data over an interval and I showed the data over the longer interval.

                  Obvious he jumped the gun mixing correlation with causation.

                  • Javier says:

                    You are the one acting dumb, WebHubTelescope, asking me:

                    “why you were only using the flat part of this isotope calibration”.
                    That figure is from an article published in Science. Only the authors know why the graph starts and ends where it does. Accusing me of cherry picking data for an article that I had nothing to do with is stupid.

                  • Javier says:


                    Recent research confirming Neff et al. findings on a different cave and time period (last millennium), using a different cosmogenic isotope, and showing that your attacks on me are baseless and misguided.

                    Jiang, T., Lin, J., Lin, Z., and Li, Y.: Multi-scale analysis of the Asian Monsoon change in the last millennium, Nonlin. Processes Geophys. Discuss., doi:10.5194/npg-2015-75, in review, 2016.

                    “The relationship among the components of δ18O, 10Be and Northern Hemisphere Temperature shows that Northern Hemisphere Temperature as well as solar activity has the obvious driving effect on the Asian Monsoon at millennial scales.”

                  • That paper says this:
                    “carbon-14 (14C) record are considered most reliable proxies of change in solar activity”

                    Yet, the chart for C looks like this


                    So this new paper looks at another flat part from 1000 to 2000. What is it doing over the HUGE overall trend? Huh, Havier?

                    Are you certain that the correlations that you are finding are not due something not related to solar?

                    BTW, what kind of opening sentence is this:
                    “The change rule and the driving mechanism of the Asian monsoon (AM) is widely concerned.”

                    I don’t care if English is not their first language. That’s not a good way to start.

                  • Javier says:

                    You didn’t even realize that article uses 10Be instead of 14C, did you?

                    Of course it is better to criticize their language skills. How good is your Mandarin?

                    This one debunks you, because it is 14C and covers the last 4200 years:

                    Evidence for solar cycles in a late Holocene speleothem record from Dongge Cave, China. Duan et al. 2014. Scientific Reports 4, Article number: 5159

                    “Here we evaluate the possible connection between them based on a precisely-dated, high-resolution speleothem oxygen isotope record from Dongge Cave, southwest China during the past 4.2 thousand years (ka). Without being adjusted chronologically to the solar signal, our record shows a distinct peak-to-peak correlation with cosmogenic nuclide 14C, total solar irradiance (TSI), and sunspot number (SN) at multi-decadal to centennial timescales.

                    Our result has further indicated a better correlation between our calcite δ18O record and atmospheric 14C

                    In conclusion, without chronological tuning, our newly obtained Dongge data confirm the importance of the solar influence on the Asian Monsoon, and provide direct and robust evidence for the Sun–monsoon connection at centennial timescales.”

                  • Javier,
                    Why don’t you explain how to calibrate this:

                    You are likely finding a correlation that has nothing to do with the sun. Like the paper says it is likely oceanic circulation.
                    Oh well, you can always go back to the drawing board.

                  • Javier says:


                    I don’t have to calibrate 14C. I leave that to the experts that are publishing peer-reviewed scientific articles on 14C. Are you one of those scientists? No. Yet you attack their expertise and the expertise of the referees and editors of the journals, including Nature and Scientific Reports, and based on what? Just your “expert” opinion that they are doing it incorrectly.

                    I think you have a very inflated ego if you think you can go crashing into a field that is not yours just armed with your opinion to tell everybody they are wrong.

                    If you are so sure they are wrong, take their data, adjust it with your calibration, interpret it and send it to Nature to see if they agree they made a mistake publishing it. If they do, they’ll publish a corrigendum and you’ll be credited for it. Science will improve with that.

                    Of course most probably you have no idea what you are talking about and just know enough to fool some people here into thinking that you know better than published peer-reviewed scientific literature.

                  • Javier, Why don’t you go and get a mirror, buddy.

                    You are the one that is copying&pasting all of these obscure research findings that you have nothing to do with. Its called the Gish Gallop.

                  • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                    “Debating opponents said that Gish used a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics quickly. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, dubbed this approach the ‘Gish Gallop’, describing it as ‘where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn’t a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate.’ She also criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents. The phrase has also come to be used as a pejorative to describe similar debate styles employed by proponents of other, usually fringe beliefs, such as homeopathy or the moon landing hoax…” ~ Wikipedia

                    Thanks for the new term, Paul. It seems to have application and relevance. More complexity, more smoke and mirrors and smokescreens.

                    The problem is in part that we are being swamped/mired in complexity. This is apparently in part how it all helps to end many civilizations, as increasing amounts of our precious time and energies are spent merely maintaining complexity and, for example, arguing about it.

                    Where, now, a motley crew of scientists and various flim-flammers, shysters, etc. are increasingly ‘falling off the wagon’ and going online, direct to everyone else and to their added confusion and sense of helplessness and hopelessness.


            • Nathanael says:

              Javier, I don’t care about your “contribution” because you have proven yourself to be dishonest, which means no assertion you make about facts can be trusted; your analysis using reasoning would still stand on its own merits, except that it has no merits and is never any good.

              However, *Dennis*, I do care about the fact that Fernando and Javier are dumping junk in the comments section. I would like this to be a useful discussion section. Neither has contributed anything useful in months at least. Banning them would make it a much more practical and useful section, free of spews of nonsense.

              • Javier says:

                Sorry Nathanael,

                Attacking my character will not get you anywhere. I back all my analysis and opinions on peer-reviewed published scientific literature. You provide no evidence of anything you say, just your opinion. The real junk being posted here comes from mainstream media articles promoting fear and alarmism, that can be debunked with a 5 minute search into the scientific literature and IPCC reports.

                You are not only heavily biased, but so intolerant that you join the list of people that try to silence any contrarian opinion to their beliefs. It is you who shows a weak character, not me.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Hi Javier,

                When you characterize the “bottom line” of a paper in a way that does not represent the paper, you open yourself up to accusations of dishonesty.

                The Trenberth paper that you cited has a “bottom line” that can be found at the end of the paper:

                The main pacemaker of variability in
                rates of GMST increase appears to be the
                PDO, with aerosols likely playing a role
                in the earlier big hiatus. There is speculation
                whether the latest El Niño event and
                a strong switch in the sign of the PDO
                since early 2014 (see the figure) mean that
                the GMST is stepping up again. The combination
                of decadal variability and a trend
                from increasing greenhouse gases makes
                the GMST record more like a rising staircase
                than a monotonic rise. As greenhouse
                gas concentrations rise further, a negative
                decadal trend in GMST becomes less likely
                ( 13). But there will be fluctuations in rates
                of warming and big regional variations
                associated with natural variability. It is important
                to expect these and plan for them.

                Note that using only carbon emissions (C), the southern oscillation index (S), aerosols (A), changes in the length of day (L), and the changes in the total solar irradiance (T), the hiatus in both 1945-1975 and 1999-2013 are accounted for. Adding in the AMO and PDO would likely improve the model, but nobody has ever claimed that there is no natural variability, only that humans are affecting climate possibly to their detriment.

                More on CSALT at link below.


                The Trenberth paper at


                • Javier says:


                  Trenberth’s paper is entitled “Has there been a hiatus?”

                  How could it be dishonest to say that the bottom line of the article is the answer to its title question?

                  It was Trenberth and not me who chose the title of his paper, and it was Trenberth who answered that question:

                  “The increasing gap between model expectations and observed temperatures provides further grounds for concluding that there has been a hiatus.”

                  So he concludes that yes, there has been a hiatus. Where is the dishonesty? Am I inventing anything? Am I misquoting anything? Am I exaggerating the importance of something that Trenberth decided to put in the title?

                  I think you and Nathanael are too quick in calling somebody dishonest. Somebody that has quoted correctly and that has interpreted that the answer to the question in the title of an article is the bottom line of the article. To me that is the most important conclusion of the paper and to Trenberth it must be very important too or he would not have chosen that title.

                  What you have quoted is just Trenberth’s opinion on the causes and consequences, what it is called discussion. The only conclusion that can be taken from the evidence presented (only one figure) is the existence of the hiatus and its proposed relationship to the PDO.

      • Caelan MacIntyre says:


        You are wrong.” ~ Fred Magyar


        Me? Or my script?

        Do you have a script? What is it? How many do you have? What about Javier, Nick G, Dennis Coyne, or GoneFishing? Which names are real, or in-between?

        Is language a technology? When does it become a technology? And what happens?

        Sovereign Raiders

        Is a virus, living, chemistry, in-between, neither, or both? What happens after it becomes living?

        Does civilization have a script? Is civilization a script? If so, can it be changed? Can mine, yours, or Javier’s be changed?

        Slim Pickens not only appeared in the film, ‘Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb‘, but also in ‘The Flim-Flam Man’. His characters were limited to the films’ scripts, even though we saw ‘him’ at the same time. So we saw at least two characters, two people per film. (Peter Sellers, of course, played more than two in the former film.)

        But the characters, themselves, on the film, were projections. So that’s 3.

        Before writing my comment, I spent 01:00 hrs biking through the middle of a vast suburban parking lot; viewed a little of ‘The Flim-Flam Man’, ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’, etc., on You Tube; and thought about and looked at some material related to witch-hunts and whatnot.
        (“A witch-hunt is a search for people labelled ‘witches’…” ~ Wikipedia)

        So what of the suburban parking lot… Does its scale and scattered big-box stores represent another human species of a larger scale? A fork in our evolution? That is yet somehow attached to us? A duality? Like a script?

        Can we change or jam the scaled script/culture/other-human and extricate our small-scale selves from it? When, how, and how easily?

        How large is this other human? Dinosaur size? Larger? Impossible Hamster size? And what are its implications, and for the smaller one that is attached?

        “…The map is a simulacrum that, as a model, loses all reference to reality… reality exists only as rotting shreds that are attached to the map, and this is the state of our age according to Baudrillard; that the model, itself, has primacy for us; the real has become irrelevant…” ~ Frances Flannery-Dailey

        “Animals don’t do what humans do via speech, namely, make a symbol stand in for the thing. As Tim Ingold puts it, ‘they do not impose a conceptual grid on the flow of experience and hence do not encode that experience in symbolic forms.’ ” ~ John Zerzan

        …Ok, this is a rough comment draft. If anyone, any screen-interpreted entity, would like to edit it and repost it, please feel free.

    • Javier says:

      Tsk, tsk, Caelan. So much interest in my person. I am flattered but please do not insist. You are not my type.

      • Caelan MacIntyre says:

        It’s really not so much you, Javier. You’re just a ‘penny ante posterchild’ for surrounding issues and dynamics that rain down on all of us, including you… Well ok maybe not you… or even anyone at all… because… if it doesn’t rain down on you, why should it rain down on anyone else?…

        I guess I just have to learn to stop worrying and love the bombs.

        • Javier said:

          “If you have an issue with a graph from a peer-reviewed article, take it to the authors or the editor.”

          That’s rich. Javier references a chart to substantiate his claim, and then when I debunk it, he requests that I take it up with the authors!

          So the actual issue is that Javier’s rhetorical argument is now dead, but he does not recognize that fact.

          • Caelan MacIntyre says:

            Paul, we are being dragged around now by another human species that we created through our capacity for symbolism taken outside for a walk.

            No one knows anything anymore, overcomplexity and all that.

            I mean, we now have people who study microbiology or whatever arguing at length with others of various specializations, generalizations and maybe no specializations at all and everything in-between about planetary climate dynamics on a peak oil site.

            • Caelen,
              John Baez @ the Azimuth Blog brought up the commentary of mathematician David Mumford concerning research specialization:
              Can one explain schemes to biologists?

              It’s insight into the warfare between scientific disciplines, and think about Javier the Microbiologist when reading this

              “Try explaining a relevant piece of math to a biologist (e.g. who doesn’t know what a group is)!”


              “A sad story. How much math do biologists need? I would argue first of all that oscillations are central part of every science plus engineering/economics/business (arguably excluding computer science) and one needs the basic tools for describing them — sines and cosines, all of trig of course, Euler’s formula e^(ix)=cos(x)+i.sin(x) and especially Fourier series. “

              • Doug Leighton says:


                Perhaps you should think of Javier as comic relief, or just ignore him, and move on. No one takes his (totally predictable) comments seriously do they? I agree that Fourier math has innumerable scientific applications besides signal processing. Modern Seismic wouldn’t exist without it.

                • Nathanael says:

                  Nobody except perhaps Fernando takes Javier seriously, no, but it’s a pain to dig through the comments to try to get to the useful ones past Javier’s spews.

                  • Javier says:

                    Just your opinion.

                    We have had very interesting discussions about climate change issues with a good level of scientific evidence being discussed. Some people do not appreciate that, but many do. The fact that those discussions are initiated over and over by different people, including the owner and his trusted second of the blog indicates there is an interest in discussing these issues.

                    Some people belonging to the intolerant part of society prefer that only the dominant opinion is heard and try to ban any dissent. But those are the real minority fortunately. When they get into power they institute censorship, witch hunts and inquisition tribunals. They are the ones that we have to be careful with, and you belong to that group.

              • Fred Magyar says:

                To be fair not all biologists are completely mathematically illiterate. My first year zoology professor also held a masters in math and found plenty of ways to use it to enhance our appreciation of ecology. There is no way you can take biochemistry without a pretty good grasp of physics, chemistry and math.

                Then again you get Republican candidate Dr. Ben Carson the neurosurgeon who is a creationist so who knows…

                • robert wilson says:

                  It varies with the college. My daughter got an undergraduate degree in biology at Cal Tech but had to take two years of physics and two years of chemistry.

              • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                Thanks, Paul. I’ll read it and let you know what I think.

          • Javier says:


            “when I debunk it, he requests that I take it up with the authors!”

            You have not debunked anything. That article is published in Science. Debunking an article implies publishing an article that challenges its conclusions or getting a letter to the editor accepted by a Journal exposing your criticism. Answering to me in a forum debunks nothing. Neither you nor I are experts in speleothems so we cannot challenge their data.

            You seem to have delusions of grandeur, thinking you can debunk articles about things you are not an expert, and frankly coming from somebody that doesn’t publish much on climate, if at all, gives a poor impression. Do you at least have some published peer-review article that backs your claim that the data from Neff et al. is not valid?

            Otherwise I will go with published peer reviewed science over your opinion any time.

            • Javier says:

              And there appears to be a body of research backing Neff et al., 2001 results on the solar influence over the Asian Monsoon, using:
              – Different time frame
              – Different caves spelothems
              – Different cosmogenic isotope

              Jiang, T., Lin, J., Lin, Z., and Li, Y.: Multi-scale analysis of the Asian Monsoon change in the last millennium, Nonlin. Processes Geophys. Discuss., doi:10.5194/npg-2015-75, in review, 2016.

              So much for your debunking.

            • You don’t do any digging because you appear to be lazy. You have to ask why they used a short time interval to do the analysis. Because that was the only region that was flat!
              Their correlation analysis would have fallen apart if they used the longer time interval.


              • Javier says:

                You are the lazy one because you never check the bibliography before making big claims that turn out to be false.

                Do you want more corroboration of Neff et al. 2001 and Jiang et al. 2016?

                Evidence for solar cycles in a late Holocene speleothem record from Dongge Cave, China. Duan et al. 2014. Scientific Reports 4, Article number: 5159

                “Here we evaluate the possible connection between them based on a precisely-dated, high-resolution speleothem oxygen isotope record from Dongge Cave, southwest China during the past 4.2 thousand years (ka). Without being adjusted chronologically to the solar signal, our record shows a distinct peak-to-peak correlation with cosmogenic nuclide 14C, total solar irradiance (TSI), and sunspot number (SN) at multi-decadal to centennial timescales.

                Our result has further indicated a better correlation between our calcite δ18O record and atmospheric 14C

                In conclusion, without chronological tuning, our newly obtained Dongge data confirm the importance of the solar influence on the Asian Monsoon, and provide direct and robust evidence for the Sun–monsoon connection at centennial timescales.”

                Now we have three peer-reviewed articles on the issue (this last one covering the last 4,200 years) against your opinion. I think you are making a fool of yourself by insisting that all this research is wrong because you say so.

                • Two items that you haven’t responded to. The calibration of the C isotope over thousands of years, and the chart you posted where I challenged you “Each of the last 2 lines that you show in that chart states 3.0 C for doubling of CO2″

                  You did bring those up, not me.

                  • Javier says:


                    I leave calibration of 14C to experts that know how to do it properly. I am not going to learn how to calibrate that isotope just to discuss it with you, but I am pretty sure that it is a problem that have been solved long ago since 14C is widely used to date organic matter all the time.

                    Regarding that table that I reproduce below, I think you are talking about IPCC best estimate of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and Model determined ECS, that contrast with experimental values (named “instrumental” by IPCC) determined by researchers.

                    There is nothing to challenge in that table. Models do not reproduce real conditions, they reproduce what has been programmed into them, and the IPCC is a political body that does not conduct research.

                    The scientific studies that incorporate the new aerosol forcing estimates based on observation give a much lower value of ECS, indicating that the increase in temperatures produced by the increase in CO2 will probably be lower than previously estimated.

  7. ezrydermike says:

    Rooftop Solar Photovoltaic Technical Potential in the United States: A Detailed Assessment

    Pieter Gagnon, Robert Margolis, Jennifer Melius, Caleb Phillips, and Ryan Elmore

    National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report January 2016

    Executive Summary

    This report quantifies the technical potential of photovoltaic (PV) systems deployed on rooftops in the continental United States, estimating how much energy could be generated by installing PV on all suitable roof area. The results do not exclude systems based on their economic performance, and thus they provide an upper bound on potential deployment rather than a prediction of actual deployment.


    The total national technical potential of rooftop PV is 1,118 GW of installed capacity and 1,432 TWh of annual energy generation. This equates to 39% of total national electric-sector sales. Table 7 summarizes the total rooftop area suitable for PV and technical potential metrics, by building class for the nation.


    • wimbi says:

      I betcha you add to that parking lots and roads, and what we could easily save with obvious efficiency moves, and you have 100% of what’s needed. Or way more. And, of course there’s wind.

      • GoneFishing says:

        Good idea wimbi. I have always thought that as those malls and big box stores become defunct the parking lots and buildings should be covered with PV.

        I am a bit concerned though, all that fracking activity is using huge amounts of sand which might limit the amount of PV that can be built in the future. Also, the towns and states near the ocean keep pouring huge quantities of sand onto eroded beaches that will soon be under water anyway. What a waste of good sand, energy and money.

        Oh well, nobody said civilization always acted in sensible ways.

    • sunnnv says:

      Uh, thanks for the link…. though now I will sleep uneasy, wondering about being lidared by the DHS…

      from the report:
      “3.1 InputData
      The lidar data used in our analysis were obtained from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Homeland Security Infrastructure Program for 2006–2014. For each of the 128 cities in the data set, DHS provided (1) lidar data in raster format at 1-m by 1-m resolution and (2) a corresponding polygon shapefile of building footprints. The raster data are based on the reflective surface return (first return) of the lidar data, which correlates to the elevation of the first object detected and creates a digital surface model for each city.
      The DHS data set also includes detailed data for about 26.9 million buildings and 7.7 billion m2 of rooftop area, or about 23% of U.S. buildings (EIA 2009; EIA 2012). The area covered, shown in Figure 3, represents about 122 million people or 40% of the U.S. population.

      • ezrydermike says:

        they got you already, check for red dots on your head and smile when you look up.

  8. R Walter says:

    The upper bound green line is the we hope the demand goes this high line.

    The EIA line middle of the road blue line is well we can live with that line, demand will be fine, if we have to increase production, we can line. We can correct it, no problem, ship some more now line.

    The lower bound red line is we’ll keep pumping, store it, the upper bound will get there line.

    Oil is in demand, it sells, in advance of the delivery date.

    The demand never stops. Ever notice that?

    • Watcher says:

      7 billion have to eat 2000 calories every day and it all moves with oil. The demand never stops.

      • name says:

        Watcher – You don’t understand what the demand is. Let’s say that people earn 99% less then they do now. What would the demand for food be?
        You often say that we have to have oil, so we will get it. But we don’t have to have oil. We have to have functioning world economy with long supply lines, not the oil. You can have lot of oil, and still 95% of population can starve to death, because oil isn’t eatable.

  9. Pingback: Texas Oil and Gas Production March 2016 | Energy News

  10. Toolpush says:

    I do find it amazing, considering how much money is riding on US oil production numbers, and yet here we go again with another set of numbers nobody can believe, and all the talk is on how this anomaly can be explained, rather than how quickly or slowly the US/Texas oil production is closing down.

    I don’t think anybody is saying that Texas oil production could have increased in January, yet all the official number are contradictory. The money guys, must have a better way of keeping their finger on the pulse, than these “official numbers”, and must be sitting laughing what the populous has to work with.

    Strangely enough, I expected MSN to be all over this unexpected increase, yet when I googled it, all I came up with Seeking Alpha relaying this blog. It seems even MSN don’t know what to make of the strange numbers.

    Thanks to all the number crunches for their efforts, and hopefully you will come to a reasonable solution to the issue.

  11. GoneFishing says:

    Looks like the ethanol industry is having similar problems to the petroleum industry.

  12. George Kaplan says:

    Petrochina shutting in loss making fields:


    From the article:

    “China’s output in 2016 will decline as much as 5 percent from last year’s record 4.3 million barrels a day, according to estimates last month from Nomura Holdings Inc. and Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.”

    The article mixes up crude production with oil plus gas numbers, as often happens in business based articles (I think the barrels above is probably C&C), but it looks like China is over the peak, as I think Ron predicted recently, and with a relatively steep decline ahead.

    • I remember visiting China and getting floored by the sheer amounts of produced water they were pumping. They used polymers by the gigatons, and everything gets looked at by 150 workers. I think a lot of it was simply a way to keep people employed?

    • Watcher says:


      A price reduction of 115 to 35 yields only a 5% cut? The yuan peg may not apply particularly to purely domestic activity and they consume all production so they can dictate price of oil internally, but still, a 5% cut does not suggest this is anything price dependent — nor need it be domestically.

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      HI george

      Why would decline be steep?

      US decline after Alaska peaked was only 2.5%/year.

      • George Kaplan says:


        The article says 5% decline – which to me is pretty steep for soon after peak (as you indicate 1 or 2% would be more normal for a large production region), I have no way of knowing if this is correct, what it is based on, or if it will be maintained. But if Petrochina are shutting in production, and have made that decision after the article, then the decline this year could actually be higher. With the caveat that crude, C&C and equivalent oil numbers get quoted in this articles without always properly defining what is being talked about.

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Sorry I didn’t read the piece.

          I agree 5% is steep. If all new well development stops that would be about right.

          Only permanently low oil prices would cause that. Seems unlikely.

          • George Kaplan says:

            If they have horizontal producers in large fields getting hit with a lot of water breakthrough 5% is not steep, but I agree it would be unlikely to be such a large effect over a range of fields at different depletions. It might depend how much in fill drilling they might have been doing to overcome water breakthrough issues.

            • The drilled a gazillion wells, pumped polymers like crazy, were producing at extremely high water cuts. The Chinese work these fields like an army of robots, all according to five year plans. It just ain’t behavior like most of you have seen before.

              • Wake says:

                Thanks for the comment Fernando. Is there more of a sequencing of fields of opportunities such that some are Relatively untouched in such a production process? Versus all fields produced slower in other markets?

              • George Kaplan says:

                Does the latest 5 year plan include a 5% drop for this year – if not what has changed to cause the drop?

      • Nathanael says:

        Decline depends on the type of field, surely. Texas, unfortunately, is a mix of several different types of fields. So this should be a hybrid decline curve — the sum of a slow curve from old conventional fields and a fast curve from new fracked fields.

  13. R Walter says:


    Coal carloads are down some 18,500 compared to Week 11 of 2015.

    Petroleum carloads are down almost 3000 in Week 11 of 2016, Week 11 of 2015 was 10,810.

    Changed the oil, pulled the drain plug and out went the synthetic oil with 15,000 miles of usage. It is a well-oiled machine. The oil wears down and the viscosity begins to become less effective, so you buy new synthetic oil, add it to the engine and the well-oiled machine works just like new again. Sure makes a difference.

    No oil in the engine and it grinds to a halt.

  14. Venezuela info: oil tankers are piling up at the Jose loading port. Main cause appears to be breakdowns of the oil loading hardware.

  15. Amatoori says:

    A lot of oil traders bring up the DUC completion as a sign of price going down. My questions: is there any money to bring them on and is it even a chance they can stop the production drop? From what I heard it’s hard make them produce properly at start up and takes time to tune. All input on the subject is welcome. http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Oil-companies-finally-tapping-long-dormant-shale-7044865.php?t=6c7362baea&cmpid=twitter-premium

    • I don’t know what you mean by “produce them properly”. When a well is hydraulically fractured it flows back a bunch of water, which gradually cleans up to water plus oil and gas (some wells are amazing, they produce almost no water in a few days). If by produce them properly means having the production equipment ready that’s an operator design issue. I’m used to working in multiwell pads, the hook up for a new well is flowline and a couple of sensors.

  16. R Walter says:

    Just oil production reports is all that is necessary, reports on climate and weather, if it is going to rain or shine, CO2 data, all that kind of data is useless. Nobody wants it, at all.

    All of the weather radar in all those towns and cities worldwide will provide data worth looking into. The information would be worth having, it is worth money.

    Better to have weather research going on than none at all. There is rhyme and reason to have such information gathering and it does cost money. Shipping would depend upon weather information, ocean going fishing vessels would rely on weather data. Once it is there, people demand it, it will have value. The supply, the data, is information people seek. Weather data is one, a plethora of weather reporting websites as we all know. Start adding it all up and it begins to have something more than just weather and current conditions.

    How many weather stations does there need to be when all you have to do is go stand outside and you will know the current conditions? If you want to remain ignorant, you don’t need any.

    25 degrees Centigrade, calm wind at 3 km per hour, fair skies with full sun.

    The beach, the tiki bar, the hammock, your favorite drink in hand, a Suffering Bastard.

    The drink’s genesis can be traced to the Long Bar at the Shepheard Hotel in Cairo. As the story goes, in the late 1940s, the Shepheard’s bar steward was Joe Scialom. One day in 1947, according to Esquire, Scialom was desperate for a hangover remedy and the Suffering Bar Steward (soon somewhat sloppily rechristened as the Suffering Bastard) was the result.


  17. Nick G says:

    What was the peak of Texas C&C production in 1972??

    I can find crude production alone (3,452 kb/d, at http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/oil-gas/research-and-statistics/production-data/historical-production-data/crude-oil-production-and-well-counts-since-1935/ ), but I don’t see C&C figures…?

  18. ezrydermike says:

    WaPo has an article about Swift Energy. Very personal. Probably good not to forget that some people are really hurting.


  19. Longtimber says:

    WallStreet or Investors Upside Down?
    “the market’s discounting mechanism is not only broke but is now going in reverse, where the worse the projected earnings, the better for stock prices.”

    • Holy Brahma, the oil market works on future expectations, not on the present. I guess I should make this comment on every post and thread to remind you.

      That chart says the stock is valued on FORECASTED profits beyond the chart horizon.

  20. Toolpush says:

    Interesting summary from H&P the largest land rig company in the US.


    Interesting points to me.

    Flex rig prices down 35%. I would have though there would have been greater falls.

    Last year they received 77 early terminations of contract, and 7 terminations this year.

    I was highly surprised, to see 3 rigs still under construction, though their completion dates have been extended further. I would have thought, all new builds would have been flat out cancelled by, as land rigs are not real long lead time items.

    I am a little confused be the first statement on the second slide, “94 rigs contracted rigs, generating revenue, and approx 89 rigs generating revenue days.” Are these 89 rigs, on standby rates?

  21. What is a Black Swan? Would the collapse of the Mosul Dam be considered a black swan even though its collapse is a foregone conclusion?

    The Mosul Dam – OPEC’s Unavoidable Supply Cut

    The Mosul Dam in Iraq could collapse at any time, causing massive flooding across the country.

    Iraq produces over four million barrels of oil per day, a number which will drop immediately when this event occurs.

    The destruction of oil production in Iraq will immediately decrease world supply, lifting oil prices.

    The Oil Situation: Since 2014, the oil market has been in a tailspin due to a multitude of global factors. As of March 2016, prices seem to have stabilized, although the persistence of crude oversupply continues to hang over the market. For months, declining US production and a potential output freeze by OPEC have been putting a potential floor in place. However, I believe an event is on the horizon which will change the equilibrium of oil prices immediately… the collapse of the Mosul Dam.

    The Mosul Dam: The Mosul Dam is the largest dam in Iraq. It is located on the Tigris River in the western governance of Ninawa, upstream of the city of Mosul. Constructed in 1981, the dam has had a history of structural issues, requiring perpetual maintenance in order to maintain its integrity. Since 1984, this consisted of 300 man crews, working 24 hours a day across three shifts, filling holes in the bedrock through a process called grouting. For 30 years, this process worked, although it was always considered to be a ticking time bomb, dubbed “the most dangerous dam in the world” by the US Army Corps of Engineers.

    In August 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant took control of the dam, halting the maintenance process until it was retaken by Iraqi, Kurdish and US Forces two weeks later. Unfortunately, the damage was already done… since then, the maintenance crews have been limited to 30 personnel or less, and the equipment is inadequate to continue patching holes. Per the dam’s former chief engineer, Nasrat Adamo, “The machines for grouting have been looted. There is no cement supply. They can do nothing. It is going from bad to worse, and it is urgent. All we can do is hold our hearts.” As winter snows melt, the water levels will rise to unsustainable levels, and while it has two pressure release gates to avoid this scenario, one has been non-functioning for years, and using the second one alone risks the stability of the structure.

    The Iraqis have been working on a solution with an Italian firm, the Trevi Group, known for fixing 150 dams worldwide. This case is special, however, as it will require a cut off wall 800 feet below the dam, the construction of which may affect the dam’s integrity. Additionally, the continued presence of ISIS poses a risk to any contractors in the area, which will require a security force of 450 personnel. Until Mosul (still held by ISIS) is retaken by Coalition forces, full repairs cannot commence. While the Iraqi forces believe this can happen in months, the US Defense Intelligence Agency head, Lt Gen. Vincent Stewart, is not optimistic that it will occur this year.

    My personal opinion, knowing the effectiveness of Iraqi Forces (who dropped their guns and fled during the initial ISIL invasion), is that the Mosul Dam will fail. Without significant US assistance, the retaking of Mosul will not occur fast enough to begin construction, and as long as it is in ISIS’ hands, safe repairs cannot commence. Although the US has not said the event is guaranteed, warnings are coming at an increasing pace, and the State Department has warned US citizens to prepare for evacuation in the event of failure.

    The Event: When the Mosul Dam collapses (and without reconstruction measures being implemented quickly, this is considered a ‘when’, not an ‘if’), a wave 45-65 feet high is expected to flood the country, drowning Mosul in four hours and reaching Baghdad within two to four days.

    Estimates range from 500,000 to 1,500,000 lives lost. In addition to flooding, there will be secondary and tertiary effects… as demonstrated in America during Hurricane Katrina, panic and lawlessness can be equally as dangerous as the flooding itself, but even worse, diseases such as malaria and West Nile fever will follow. A catastrophic event of this magnitude will immediately push the entire country into chaos, and Iraq does not have the capability to respond without global support. The closest comparison to make is Haiti, which with billions in global assistance has not returned to normalcy in five years. Overall, I anticipate this catastrophe will take years to overcome… in the meantime, it will have a significant effect on the world’s supply of oil today.

    When this dam does collapse, Iraq will suddenly become the world’s largest failed state.

    • Oldfarmermac says:

      Hi Ron,

      IF there is any one “best accepted” definition of the term, it is this one:

      “An event or occurrence that deviates beyond what is normally expected of a situation and that would be extremely difficult to predict. This term was popularized by Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s book “The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable.” Mr Taleb is a finance professor and former Wall Street trader. [
      Black Swan Definition from Financial Times Lexicon

      So the collapse when it comes will not be a Black Swan.

      I have no specific knowledge of such matters , but being the sort who reads every thing compulsively, I have read about many catastrophic events.

      They often start slowly, and gradually accelerate, until at some point, they speed up faster and faster, over a matter of a few minutes or hours, and then it’s all over but the crying a minute or two after that.

      The handful of people on the scene who know their stuff, even though they are not able to do much of any thing else due to lack of enough help and materials , might be able to do at least one thing.

      That would be to relay to such authorities as are in power, in Mosul and elsewhere, that the collapse is CERTAIN within a given time frame. This might be as long as a week or two , or as short a quarter of an hour or maybe even less.

      But even a quarter of an hour warning would be enough to allow a lot of people to get to high ground.

      It might be that the dam can be drained in a partially controlled fashion once collapse becomes a foregone short term conclusion. This would have the effect of lowering the height of the flood waters.

    • The question is whether the oil fields near Basrah will be impacted. This depends on the field and pipeline layout. I think it’s possible to do a partial work around as long as the export pipelines can be repaired within say 30-60 days.

  22. robert wilson says:

    A famous 1928 Dam break in the county where I live. Though we are now suffering a severe drought, I recall being affected by heavy rains and another flood in Ventura, 1969. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam

  23. Oldfarmermac says:

    I think maybe every body who is interested in the future of the country should read this piece very carefully indeed.


    Clinton’s supposed overwhelming advantage as the nominee and eventual democratic candidate consists mostly of hot air expended by a lazy MSM used to ‘going steady’ with the D party establishment. Sander’s chances of winning the old south are actually better than Clinton’s, in the REAL election.

    My lawyer and personal friend for half a century has NEVER voted for an R party candidate in his life. A bunch of us were having a few brews a couple of days ago, and somebody remarked that the email scandal is only a scandal, and nothing that matters. He laughed so hard he spit up his beer.

    When he was able to talk again, he said, paraphrased, Take this to the bank. If she escapes indictment, it is because the Obama administration wants it that way.

    ( A few other people in somewhat similar situations have of course been able to get off with various sorts of deals, such as loss of rank, forced retirement, etc in the case of military people, but their reputations were destroyed in the process. )

    In that event,he continued, some highly respected career law enforcement people are going to resign and pull Snowdens.

    Nobody has ever heard of these people YET, but then nobody had ever heard of Snowden, had they?


    You want a winner on the D ticket, send Bernie twenty bucks.

    Trump might beat Clinton, but I don’t think he has a prayer of beating Sanders.

    • Ves says:

      But after all you had a nice coffee and few good laughs with you friends so why do you worry? Do you believe that the level of intensity of your worry will determine the results of election or (peak oil or peak “this” or peak “that”)?
      If you worry with higher intensity would your favourite candidate have more chance of winning?
      Don’t worry.

    • GreaseMonkey says:

      Give it a rest Mac, we all know you have women issues and didn’t even know what a server or Benghazi was 8 years ago. Back when you thought a server was the women who sat a piece of pie in front of you after dinner. Hillary has spent her entire career trying to improve American lives and has more experience to be president than anyone else running.

      Trump couldn’t find Fancy Gap on a map with the help of Google. But than again, who would want too. Fancy Gap, the home of the last Republican backwoods loser attoney and apple grower.

      If you find this comment insulting. Just ask yourself how Afro Americans, Latinos, LGBT, women, muslims and the Chinese feel about Trump.

      Trump is the gift that will turn the House of Representitives over to the Democrats. Demcrats like both Bernnie and Hillary. Republicans hate both Cruz and Trump.

      Give it a rest

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        Hi Ves,
        I have never noticed you advising anybody to give it a rest when the comments are all about badmouthing the R party etc.

        Now that I am pushing for the more popular Democrat, as evidenced by all the polls I am aware of, at the national level, you want me to give it a rest? LOL.

        Now I DO have a problem with a CERTAIN woman, one who somehow managed to make a hundred to one return, in a speculative market, in a year, using insider information and a crooked broker.

        If you are mathematically literate, you can check it out for yourself.

        If you are a true believer …………. either way……… of course no amount of evidence will change your mind.

        The ODDS are many tens of millions to one I am right about Cattle Gate. The odds that she did it honestly are many tens of millions of one against, ask any mathematician.

        I suggest you read up on it in the archives of the NYT, or the Washington Post, or the Telegraph, or any other paper that really covered that issue , and the White Water issue. . A fair number of her business associates wound up in jail.

        She has displayed an astounding lack of judgement in running a personal email system handling government of the absolutely most sensitive sort, and may very well yet be indicted for doing so. If she escapes indictment, it seems likely at least a couple of career FBI people will resign their positions and pull Snowdens.

        I have a problem with a woman who makes megabucks pandering to outfits like Gold in Sacks.

        Sanders is NOT in Wall Street’s vest pocket.

        My personal attorney and near life long good drinking and fishing buddie has voted a straight D ticket his entire life, but he laughed so hard he spit up his beer when one of the guys asked him if HRC’s email system was legal. This was in private of course, he will never say so in public.

        Now a whole CREW of FBI men are not on this case except for two possible reasons. ONE is that they are desperately trying to find out how much super sensitive information got into the wrong hands.

        The question of legality in such matters is typically answered in pretty short order, you don’t need dozens of cops, unless the suspect is extremely powerful, with extremely deep pockets, thus requiring an all out effort to mount a successful prosecution, if prosecution is called for.

        This lack of judgement alone is enough to disqualify HRC as a candidate.

        The OTHER reason is if the fix is already in, then the show of force is to demonstrate that the question was very thoroughly investigated and no fault was found. Maybe both.

        There are plenty of savvy people who believe that if she escapes indictment, at least a handful of career FBI people will resign in protest, and maybe spill the beans as well.

        You never heard of Snowden until he spilled the rotten beans did you?

        Anybody who believes that EITHER party can be counted on to honestly investigate such affairs using it’s own partisan people is naive in the extreme. I have been observing the political scene since Eisenhower’s time, and have never noticed either party being truly interested in investigating one of its own, to put it as mildly as possible.

        This is a sterling example of why we need special prosecutors .

        Sanders is the future, the embodiment of the liberal democracy vision.

        He has not gotten rich out of his public service. He was in the front lines in front of Clinton, ahead of Clinton, on all the major issues.

        • Ves says:

          Hi Mac,

          You are so deep in political Matrix that you can’t even comprehend what I am asking.
          I am asking you a simple question: Would your intense worry help your candidate win the election? Yes? or No?
          If you worry more does your candidate has more chance of winning?
          If you write 3 mile long table cover posts about your candidate or opposition candidate does you candidate has more chance of winning?

          Do you have scientific evidence that anyone, i repeat anyone, actually changed their mind by reading posts on the Internet?

          So if the answer is NO for all above why are you wasting your energy?

          • Nathanael says:

            I have actually read scientific evidence that people have had their minds changed by reading posts on the Internet. (Study on whether people were influenced by stuff they read on Facebook.)

            There appear to have two ways in which people were influenced:
            (1) if they had no opinion at all on the topic before
            (2) if they read posts which disagreed with them by people who they personally respected. (People discount any post which disagrees with them from someone who hasn’t earned their respect already.) I think OldFarmerMac has earned a little personal respect around here.

            • RestTime says:

              Mac -“Now that I am pushing for the more popular Democrat, as evidenced by all the polls”

              “Respect”- bullshit

              Hillary has 70% more delegates including the superdelegates (including her peers)

              25 % more delegates from the first 24 states that have voted

              Hillary leads in the polls by a lot in the 3 largests remaining states- California, New York and Pennsylvania

              Total votes primaries – 6:40 PM – 13 Mar 2016

              Clinton —— 4.8 million
              Trump —— 4.2 mill
              Cruz —— 3.4 mill
              Bernie – 3.0 mill
              Rubio – 2.3 mill

              Oldfoxfarmernewsmac hack job- “guys asked him if HRC’s email system was legal. This was in private of course, he will never say so in public.”

              Enough said, time to give it a rest

          • not clever says:

            Why are you wasting your energy in rebuttal, then?

            If Clinton already has the nomination sewn up, why do her supporters continue to work so hard to point that out?

            • Ves says:

              ” Why are you wasting your energy in rebuttal, then?”

              Because through rebuttal to Mac I am actually talking to other people that clearly see the theatrical disgrace of the democratic process called elections.
              See you in December and hopefully you get sick and tired of this election circus by that time.

  24. Longtimber says:

    “Terror alert after Belgian nuclear plant guard is murdered and his security pass is stolen amid concerns terrorists are plotting an attack on power station”
    From the Comments “Last night on cnn a brussels minister said they don’t have the money for the amount of security needed”
    Speaking of Black Swans. In many locations in the US, Pools of spent fuel rods are cool enough and ready for Cask’s but not “in any real containment” . My colleagues that spent their lives building these reactor vessels are in absolute disbelief of the complete failure to address perhaps the biggest risk to Humanity and the Biosphere. Obviously important to keep bring this issue up to those in office.

    • Please be quiet, we are all supposed to focus on global warming. This will require more nuclear plants.

      • Longtimber says:

        Not Saying eliminate from the energy mix , Someone just needs to be accountable, follow the plan to and get it underground and away from population centers. It’s Simple – Relocate and secure the spent fuel OR relocate populations.

  25. Paulo says:

    You folks might find this interesting on the closing of the last working coal mine on Vancouver Island. The Island has been producing coal for well over 100 years. The deposits actually reach as far west as Pt. McNeil.


    plus link to a local cbc radio broadcast on it this January

    • sunnnv says:

      Interesting, didn’t know there were any operating coal mines on Vancouver Island in recent history, like from the 60’s or so.

      Looks like that mine will be for sale.

      Maybe they’ll rename it the White Elephant mine 😉

  26. Dean says:

    Hi all. I just examined the number of Texas RRC number of delinquent leases since 2013 and I found that there is a good seasonality, even though with a good degree of variability (see plot below). That said, in case of January 2016 the number of delinquent leases was approximately 15-20% smaller that its monthly average for January.

    If I adjust my correcting factors for Jan2016 for this drop, the total C+C would be lower than 3400 kb/d, ranging between 3370 and 3400, depending on how I adjust the data, thus confirming the downward trend.

    In the end, what I can say: Texas RRC crudeoil data have always been messy in general, but this month they have become even more messier 🙂

    • Enno says:

      Thanks for your update on this Dean!

    • AlexS says:

      Thanks Dean,

      If I’m not wrong, TRRC now requires oil companies to report oil and gas production in electronic form, rather than on paper. This could also affect TRRC preliminary production statistics for the most recent months.
      If so, do you think you will have to adjust your correcting coefficients?

      • AlexS says:

        Meanwhile, another source indicates that oil production in Texas may have declined in January 2016.

        Texas oil output finally drops, more job losses likely

        March 3, 2016

        Finally, in January, 19 months into the crude oil price collapse, Texas producers recovered less crude oil than in the same month the previous year.

        “It is at least somewhat encouraging that estimated crude oil production in Texas actually posted a year-over-year decline in January,” said Karr Ingham, the economist who created the TPI and updates it monthly. “Although the decline was modest, we can expect the pace of production decline in Texas and the US to accelerate in 2016.”
        While the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers estimates that the first year-over-year decline in monthly Texas production in the current cycle occurred in January, the US Energy Information Administration estimates that the first year-over-year decline in monthly US crude oil production since 2011 occurred in December 2015.
        “But until both production and storage volumes begin to reflect meaningful declines, there is little reason to expect any appreciable improvement in market conditions,” Ingham noted.

        • Crude oil production in Texas totaled an estimated 102.2 million barrels [3,297 kb/d – AlexS], 2.3% less than in January 2015. The value of Texas-produced crude oil totaled nearly $2.92 billion, 36.8% less than in January 2015.
        • Estimated Texas natural gas output was more than 721.3 billion cubic feet, a year-over-year monthly decline of 1.3%. With natural gas prices in January averaging $2.22/Mcf, the value of Texas-produced gas declined 25.3% to about $1.6 billion.

        The Texas Petro Index is a service of the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, a state association of independent oil and gas producers.

      • Dean says:

        Hi Alex. Yes, I am aware of the digitalization process going on: actually, it is difficult to assess which factor affects more the data reporting, whether the digitalization process or the lower crude production which speeds up filing report.

        Definitely, if this situation will continue some changes to my correcting factors will be required. The problem is that, until some stabilization in data reporting takes place, it will be very difficult to modify the algorithm, also considering the limited number of data available (statistically speaking, the sample available is small).

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi Dean,

          Looking at the Delinquency data you presented above, it looks like things have not changed very much. Basically delinquencies go up from August to Oct and then vary around 5000-6000 for the rest of the year. This is probably already captured in your correction factors. Based on this data have you revised all of your estimates or only Jan 2016?

  27. This is interesting: Oil price recovery to accelerate as smaller producers slash output

    Oil prices could rebound sooner than expected as smaller oil producing nations make deeper cuts to output than forecasts suggested.

    Analysts at Bernstein claim that production from non-Opec oil producers outside the US is falling four times faster than the International Energy Agency estimated, meaning prices should recover faster than expected.

    The research shows that net oil production from China, Russia, Mexico, Canada and the North Sea is declining by 220,000 barrels a day, compared to IEA forecasts of a net decline of just 50,000 barrels a day for the group.

    The steeper than expected declines will help oil markets re-balance in the second half of 2016, the brokerage said.

    In the relatively high-cost North Sea basin, Bernstein expects production to decline by almost 95,000 barrels a day, compared to the IEA forecast of a 50,000 barrel a day decline.

    I am not at all surprised by this. In fact it is exactly what I expected. I have been surprised and more than a little suspicious of the IEA and EIA projections of a much smaller and much slower decline.

    • AlexS says:

      China, Russia, Mexico, Canada and the North Sea are “smaller oil producing nations ” ???

      • Nick G says:

        Headlines are written by editors, who often create titles that embarrass the writers of the actual story.

        In this case the “smaller” is also seen in the first paragraph, but I’d guess it comes from the same basic problem.

  28. shallow sand says:

    Read Trump has proposed US embargo of M.E. oil.


    • Trump is an idiot. The Middle East includes Saudi Arabia, Kuwait the UAE and Oman. Why would we embargo them? Or all of them? Such very stupid suggestions is just what we might expect from Trump, the most unqualified candidate ever to get this far in the electoral process. The fact that he has gotten this far testifies to the stupidity of the republican electorate.

      • shallow sand says:

        I try to stay away from political comments, but have any of you read the transcript of Trump’s meeting with the editorial board of the Washington Post?

        I’d be interested to hear a Trump supporter’s explanation of that one.

        • robert wilson says:

          Bernie Sanders says (from oilprice.com).

          “I will work toward a 100 percent clean energy system and create millions of jobs. We have little time to aggressively cut carbon emissions. Transitioning to a 100 percent clean energy system for electricity, heating, and transportation is possible and affordable. It will create millions of jobs, clean up our air and water and decrease dependence on foreign oil.”

          Do Bernie supporters believe that we can thrive without fossil fuels?

          • shallow sand says:

            100% clean energy system?

            Has he described this in detail?




            • shallow sand says:

              I read Sanders’ plan.

              Ban fracking.

              Ban offshore.

              Ban production on federal lands.

              Is it just me, or will this plan drive up oil prices higher than the 2008 peak in short order?

              Assuming oil prices under this plan will go to $200+ per barrel WTI, assuming complete transition from oil takes 20 years, and assuming Sanders does not ban stripper well production, or eliminate it effectively immediately through tax or environmental legislation, Bernie may be the most favorable candidate for conventional lower 48 producers.

              I assume Sanders’ goal is to eventually put even the little guy oil producers out of business, but in the interim, one could hopefully bank enough money for P & A when that time arrives. He favors the little guy, maybe he will realize the little guys have the smallest environmental footprint, and wont try to put them out without plenty of warning? Maybe even a government buyout?

              I am less than half serious here, but as crazy as things are this election cycle, who knows? Of course, I assume there would be some kind of 95% tax rate or something close?

              Question if proposed ban on FF lobbyists would pass judicial review?

              • Toolpush says:


                Could be good for both you and me! lol

              • Jason T. says:

                Here is a diary from Daily Kos that raises the same issue you have with regard to how much Sanders would drive up the price of energy. I chose Daily Kos because the hard-core Democratic activists post there and they overwhelmingly support Sanders.

                Look at the comments. Most are completely dismissive of the issue or bring out the same old ‘climate change can’t wait’ tripe we see here. They don’t even consider the absolute deluge of American Petroleum Institute attack ads that would be coming Bernie’s way this fall if he were the nominee, or that such ads could very well come at a time when gas prices are on a natural rise anyway due to the price of oil going up.

                That all leads me to conclude that, as with the majority of Bernie’s platform, implementation of his plans would require hope, the ‘revolution in the streets’ he claims would occur if he got elected, and probably a fair amount of pixie dust.

                • shallow sand says:

                  Jason T. Good link.

                  I hadn’t been paying much attention to Bernie, but after doing a little reading I think his energy policies, if enacted, would be a radical change.

                  I must also say, he is vague. I guess all candidates are.

                • Nathanael says:

                  The American Petroleum Institute has such an incredibly negative association in the public mind — deeply unpopular — that any ads they run (since they have to admit that they paid for them) would backfire on them and help Bernie.

              • Oldfarmermac says:

                Hi SS, Tool Push

                Sanders is like all other politicians in that he has to throw a lot of red meat to his most avid supporters, in order to get nominated, and then, if he gets nominated, he will tone down that sort of rhetoric.

                As Nixon put it, back in the dark ages, you run as hard to the right as you can to get nominated, and then as hard as you dare back towards the center to get elected.

                FORCED climate change is very real, and getting worse.

                Furthermore , we are fucking up the environment in general terms in such a way that we are already paying an ENORMOUS price in terms of public health problems, quality of life problems, and enonomic and military security problems.

                I can say this with professional confidence, rather than as a layman, because while I am not a biologist as such, my own professional background is based on the study of biology in the same way that engineering is based on the study of physics.

                An energy transition will take a hell of a long time, and we might actually suffer an economic collapse BECAUSE we actually do run seriously short of oil , for geological, political, and or economic reasons, before we have an alternative fuel or power supply available.

                As a matter of fact there is a very substantial risk of this happening. We would be royally fucked in case of a major hot war interfering with the blue water shipping of oil for instance.

                I do NOT believe the price of oil can stay low, due to depletion, and the high marginal costs of new production, because I do not believe we can transition away from oil as fast as oil transitions away from us, due to depletion.

                The only reason oil might stay cheap, in my opinion at least, is that the world wide economy just sort of withers up and figuratively enters the nursing home.

                All my farmer friends and acquaintances who are less politically savvy than I am are very fond of believing, or at least saying, that environmentalists are determined to put them out of business.

                I have been hearing this same old shit since the sixties, but the supermarkets are still full of food, and it is cheaper than ever, in real terms.

                It is true that a few farmers here and there are forced out due to increasingly stringent environomental regs, but nearly all of them are marginal operators in the first place.

                Farmers grow fewer every year in the USA, but we are putting each other out of business, rather than environmentalists, lol.

                Economy of scale rules my industry, except for the handful of people who can sell directly to boutique markets.

                You and your buddies will pass on whatever environmental compliance costs you have to pay, just as you pass on all your other costs. I passed on my own before I retired.

                The auto companies have passed on the costs of pollution controls and air bags, etc.

                If Sanders is elected, you won’t hear much from the WH about BANNING fracking.

                Nobody is going to actually ban oil production, or the use of it, except maybe at the local level, until an alternative is in place and scaled up.Frogs aren’t going to grow wings and quit bumping their asses.

                You can bet your last stale donut that you will be dead of old age before there are enough electric cars on the road to seriously impact the sale of your oil.

                If anything, Sanders in the WH would probably mean good times for you as a small operator in an old conventional oil producing area.

                He will no doubt slow down leasing on federal lands, in federal waters, etc, if is able to muster enough support. But that sort of production is for the big guys, right? And you are a little guy,you have said so yourself.

                As my good buddy and attorney puts it, his super liberal super green daughters would vote for the KOCH BROTHERS before they would ride a bus with foulmouthed stinky commoners or live in a small apartment.

                The sort of things Sanders is talking about in terms of energy are the future, long term, for very good reasons.

                Implementing such plans will take two or three generations, IF we succeed in doing so. Everybody who is a realist understands this.

                If we don’t succeed , eventually we will be forced to go back to muscle power, plus whatever renewable energy we can capture, barring a few near miraculous breakthroughs in fusion power etc.

                The very best reason to be working now on renewable energy is that oil, gas, and coal will not last forever.There are many worked out coal mines near where I live. No no doubt you guys know about a hell of a lot of exhausted oil fields.

                • shallow sand says:

                  OFM. I tend to be a middle of the road kind of guy, which means I am very far left of my fellow stripper well owners.

                  My biggest complaint with O on energy issues is that he says he is trying to stop tax breaks for big oil, yet the breaks he wants to eliminate are primarily for small producers.

                  The number one break he wants to eliminate is the percentage depletion deduction. This deduction is only available on the first 1,000 boepd produced. It has been on the books since 1926. Every other mineral producer gets to take percentage depletion, including those who sell lime, gravel and dirt. No others have the volume limit oil and gas has.

                  O did get changed percentage depletion for marginal producers (small guys) in the 2012 budget deal when it was eliminated for leases which show a loss in a calendar year. So in 2015, we got to take very little percentage depletion, so unless oil goes back up, this deduction wont be used much. This change also drove up the cost of our tax return preparation, as the accountant had to figure the p & l on each lease to calculate percentage depletion. Fortunately, we have good accounting software which pretty much did this already.

                  What really gripes me is how few vote in primaries and caucuses. The far left and far right have so skewed everything, we end up where we are in 2016.

                  • shallow sand says:

                    OFM. You are probably right, Bernie would help the little oil producer, at least in the short term.

                    When he says he will ban fracking, does that include our little 5000 gallon ones? Wonder if he has anyone advising him that has any oil and gas knowledge?

                  • Reno Hightower says:

                    How is Bernie going to pay for his socialism after killing fossil fuels? He can not pay for it with a growing economy AND robust fossil fuel production never mind the tepid growth we have now. Socialism does not work. Do not see the attraction in it unless you have a desire to tell people how to live through intense regulation of the economy.

                  • Oldfarmermac says:

                    Hi SS, Tool Push,Reno,

                    All politicians throw raw red meat to their supporters in the primaries, and then they run back to the middle to get elected.

                    If Sanders gets to the WH , or even nominated, you will hear a hell of a lot less about banning fracking, etc.

                    He can’t do it, and he knows he can’t do it, and his supporters who THINK know he can’t , and would not, even if he could.

                    He won’t have enough political capital to throw it away on such a losing battle. Not more than ten to twenty percent, max, of D congress critters would support such a ban, and virtually NONE of the R critters would go along.

                    Any effort made in that direction will be a token effort, no more.

                    Exaggeration is the name of the game.

                    Switching over to even fifty percent renewable energy is going to take a lot longer than any of the three of us are likely to live, and considering depletion, and the risks associated with international oil markets going forward, I am personally confident you will have a market for your oil from now on out, as long as you live.

                    Oil and mineral tax law are subjects I know very little about, but generally speaking, all business tax laws seem to be written to favor the big guys.

                    I expect Sanders would be more sympathetic to small producers than either Trump or Clinton.

                    Trump IS Wall Street, and Clinton is in the vest pocket of Wall Street, peeking out like a tea cup sized doggie.

                    What Sanders will do , imo, if elected, in terms of energy, is to push legislation and regulations tightening up efficiency standards, cleaning up emissions, and scaling up renewables.

                    Neither he nor his advisors are stupid, and they know that we will be dependent on fossil fuels for decades to come.

                    According to the consensus opinion of all the major science organizations I know of, we are at high risk for very dangerous forced climate change, and also at high risk of running very short of fossil fuels well before we have viable alternatives in place.

                    Personally I think the risks associated with running short of fossil fuels are comparable to or maybe even worse, in some respects, than the climate change risks.

                    Suppose the cards fall wrong, and an oil war morphs into a flat out nuclear WWIII?

                    You cross bridges as you come to them.

                    Anybody who thinks it COULDN’T happen is historically illiterate.

                    We aren’t going to quit using fertilizers and pesticides to farm, or burning oil in trucks and cars, etc, until viable and affordable alternatives are in place, and that will not be during your lifetimes, or mine.

                    Politicians like to talk about long term policies such as renewable energy as if they could make miracles happen within their terms, but nobody, excepting some foot soldier true believers, think they mean it, at least not in the short or medium term.

                    If Sanders gets to the WH, it would be good to have a little money invested in renewables companies. LOL

                  • Nathanael says:

                    Percentage depletion is a complete scam — it’s a nest of extremely arbitrary tax breaks for various extraction industries. It should never have been allowed for anyone: allowing it for sulfur miners is just as bad as allowing it for oil & gas.


                    Cost depletion is a real economic cost, the equivalent of depreciation.

                    Percentage depletion is just a nest of favored-industry subsidies, for industries which we have no particular reason to favor. It should be abolished entirely. And yes, I’ve benefited from it personally.

            • wimbi says:

              Thanks, Ezry, makes me a bit louder in my urging of Bernie on my friends. Actually, most are there already.

              But, if it came to it, far rather Hillary than any of the others. She’s just an ordinary sinner like most, and we are adapted to that.

              A little thought leads me to the obviously correct solution- a computer algorithm. Everybody gets to examine “president” in minute detail, run a billion simulations, and think about which one he wants to vote for.

              Or, better yet, let the algorithms battle it out and may the best — Ugh, glugggssssssssss.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        HI Ron

        Let me fix ya first sentence for ya. Trump is an idiot, in terms of his positions, but a genius when it comes to pushing hot buttons. That’s much better.

        Now remember this, everybody. People are not prone to THINK when you challenge them tribally. Like it or not, this election is all about us versus them, at the social level, the tribal level. Challenge a person’s tribal identity, and they FIGHT back , however they can.

        I totally agree that Trump would be the worst possible president of all the people who have EVER in any USA election gained any serious level of support, nationally.

        Generally speaking, people are not supporting him BECAUSE they like him. They are supporting him because they are furiously angry that the R party has taken them for granted, as foot soldiers, going along exporting their jobs, licking Wall Street feet, etc, and defending their cultural values with lots of words, but not enough action. His support is almost entirely based on the fact that he is , in the minds of his supporters, NOT the establishment.

        YES-His supporters are in the last analysis either stupid or ignorant. Ignorant is much more the case than stupid.

        But that does not mean there aren’t enough of them for him to win, if the cards fall right for him.

        Let’s not forget that while there are many millions of people who will vote for any D candidate in order to vote AGAINST Trump, there probably are as many and maybe even more people who will vote FOR any R candidate , even Trump , in order to vote AGAINST HRC.

        They are supporting him because he is NOT HRC, and because he is NOT BUSH or any close variation of another BUSH , in their minds at least.

        Has it ever occurred to the typical HRC devotee that she lost the nomination to Obama because the average D primary voter even back then was TIRED of her?

        Obama came out of nowhere, nobody had ever heard of him. Sanders is kicking her butt, everywhere except the old South, considering the size of her handicap,since she OWNS the D party establishment, and considering she has been in national campaign mode forever, whereas Sanders is now literally coming out of nowhere.

        Can Trump win? I hope like hell he WON’T, and that he won’t even get the nomination.

        BUT there IS a possibility he will.

        It is just about perfectly obvious to me that I am the only person who comments politically here who has any SERIOUS insight into working class and poor people who are so called conservatives, meaning republican voters. I GREW UP among such people, and have known hundreds or thousands of them over the last half century plus. Not a one I have spoken too gives a flying fuck about Trump in and of himself.

        I also lived for ten years as a young guy in the heart of a university district after graduating myself, wearing long hair, hanging out ninety percent of my time with liberal D types, married a Jewish girl from the Big Apple( ten years for that marriage, plus a couple more shacked up ) had an ACLU membership card, a NEA card, an OPERATING ENGINEERS card, etc. So I can maybe modestly say I also have LIVED on both sides of the cultural fence and actually UNDERSTAND both sides of the culture.

        Are working class conservatives stupid? It’s easy to make that case, of course, if you fail to consider that they lack the eductational advantages of typical middle class liberals, but otoh, rage is a three times better explanation.

        Bottom line, Sanders is far far more popular with voters nationwide than Clinton, and much more likely to win the general election. He doesn’t have the baggage.

        And he is a Democrat’s DEMOCRAT, one with the hearts and souls of the younger generation in his hip pocket, whereas HRC is peeking out of the vest pocket of Wall Street, which IS the same thing as the R party establishment. TRUMP IS WALL STREET.

        Folks, the country as a whole is sick and tired of Bushes and Clintons. Everybody who will vote for Clinton will vote for Sanders. Sanders will get out millions more young people, and people like me, to vote the D ticket than HRC ever will.

    • GoneFishing says:

      The United States is a keystone nation in the world. Isolating it would cause major change and havoc in the rest of the world. Bad idea. We have a lot of problems to work on now, no need to add to them.

  29. SatansBestFriend says:

    Not that anyone cares about my opinion, but

    The US isn’t importing much oil from the middle east at the moment. So I think they could easily find new buyers.

    Trump thinks the US can just take whatever oil the USA needs, whenever it is needed.

    IMO it is stupidly simplistic thinking and my guess is the US Military would consider his ideas crazy.

    The US Government doesn’t have any oil companies. So how could the US invade a country and produce the OIL?

    It would be a big mess IMO.

      • chilyb says:

        I’ll add one to that.

        Aerial photos of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef:



        • chilyb says:

          and another one that provides more context on the bleaching event:


          I am not trying to promote alarmism, but nonetheless, these are some alarming excerpts from the article:

          Coral bleaching is caused by abnormally high sea temperatures that kill the tiny marine algae essential to coral health.

          This is the third global coral bleaching since 1998, and scientists have found no evidence of these disasters before the late 20th century.

          “We have coral cores that provide 400 years of annual growth,” explains Dr Neal Cantin from the Australian Institute of Marine Science.

          “We don’t see the signatures of bleaching in reduced growth following a bleaching event until the recent 1998/2000 events.”

          Professor Justin Marshall, a reef scientist from the University of Queensland, said the reason for these bleaching events was clear.

          “What we’re seeing now is unequivocally to do with climate change,” he told 7.30.

          • Javier says:

            I agree. Coral bleaching appears to be produced mainly by rapidly rising sea surface temperatures, although many other causes also stress corals and produce it. The major global bleaching events appear to coincide with El Niño years (1988, 1998, 2005 and this year), when sea surface temperatures greatly increase.

            A group of marine researchers from several countries have published recently a new proxy for prior bleaching events based on changes in a Boron isotope (δ11B), because we had no information on bleaching prior to 1979. What they describe in their publication is that there appears to have been two periods prior to this of important bleaching at a global scale:

            A novel paleo-bleaching proxy using boron isotopes and high-resolution laser ablation to reconstruct coral bleaching events. Dishon, G. et al., 2015. Biogeosciences, 12, 5677–5687

            Those periods were 11,500 years ago, at the end of the Younger Dryas, when the sea warmed together with the rest of the planet during the last deglaciation, and 6000 years ago, after the ice sheets completely melted during the Holocene Climatic Optimun.

            Importantly they also detect that 20th century bleaching has taken place in two different periods, one during the 1930’s warming that was not of anthropogenic nature, and the other during present global warming.

            If this proxy is faithful and really measures bleaching, this is encouraging, because coral bleaching was discovered in 1979 and we have found no traces of the 1930’s bleaching, indicating that corals recover from this episodes in just a few decades.

            Corals are extremely resilient organisms. Between glacials and interglacials they have to withstand rapid changes in sea level of over 120 meters, and great changes in water temperatures that cause them to expand or contract their range. Two of the past four interglacials were significantly warmer than the Holocene. If we take good care of coral reefs, avoid pollution and overfishing and reseed them after significant bleaching events, they should be able to withstand present global warming, as they have withstood previous ones.

          • chilyb says:

            Here’s another article from the Guardian that claims the link between the bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef and climate change is “incontrovertible.”


            From the article:

            Hughes says it’s also misleading to pin the blame for the current bleaching event on the El Niño climate pattern.

            Evidence from long term coral records did not show the signatures of coral bleaching, even though those corals would have been through many El Niño events. Hughes explains:

            “It’s only since 1998 that the extra spikes [from El Niño] cause problems. We had El Niños for centuries but they don’t show bleaching.

            Because it’s pristine [in the reef’s north], it’s not got the issues with run-off [from agriculture and coastal development] and it should better be able to bounce back.

            But if it takes 10 years, what’s the chance of getting another El Nino before 2026? It’s high. We will be in trouble if the return time is less than the recovery time.”

            In another bitter slice of irony, Hughes says that the central and southern sections of the reef probably “dodged a bullet” but this was only thanks to the cooling influence of the tail-end of the same weather system that caused the devastating cyclone in Fiji.

  30. R Walter says:

    As I was driving my truck yesterday, as I was just sitting there in the driver’s seat, not doing anything, not even thinking, just stitting there sitting, still driving though, it dawned on me that it takes gas to drive down the road just stitting there behind the wheel aimlessly wandering in the midst of the mist, all in the dark. har

    If it means the complete destruction and dissolution of the Republican Party, I hope Donald Trump continues with his ridiculous nonsense until the Republicans just dry up and blow away. Donald is doing a heckuva job, mission accomplished. Millions of Americans are more than happy to help make it happen. Don’t anybody try to stop him now!

    If there is a God, He can at least answer that one prayer.

    If I ever see another Republican, it will be too soon.

    A few words from H. L. Mencken:

    The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself… Almost inevitably, he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable. – H. L. Mencken

    “The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.”-H. L. Mencken

    Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing. —Mencken

    “As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”—H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920


    Oil is the glue that binds it all together.

    • Silicon Valley Observer says:

      Brilliant. Thank you.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        A hearty second from me. And thanks RW for the link, I didn’t have this one, and it has some quotes in it not on my other Mencken links.

        Let us all pray to the Sky Daddy or Mommy of our choice that Trump never wins an election for any office, not even village dog catcher.

    • Greenbub says:

      “Oil is the glue that binds it all together.” And money greases the wheel. And one hand washes the other. Could someone plot this in a chart, please?

  31. farmboy says:

    At long last, we Have science catching up with what leading edge researchers and practicioners have been saying for some time and it’s urgent for this to get into the broader conversation.

    The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America

    W.R. Teague, S. Apfelbaum, R. Lal, U.P. Kreuter, J. Rowntree, C.A. Davies, R. Conser, M. Rasmussen,
    J. Hatfield, T. Wang, F. Wang, and P. Byck

    Abstract: Owing to the methane (CH4) produced by rumen fermentation, ruminants are a
    source of greenhouse gas (GHG) and are perceived as a problem. We propose that with appropriate
    regenerative crop and grazing management, ruminants not only reduce overall GHG
    emissions, but also facilitate provision of essential ecosystem services, increase soil carbon (C)
    sequestration, and reduce environmental damage. We tested our hypothesis by examining
    biophysical impacts and the magnitude of all GHG emissions from key agricultural production
    activities, including comparisons of arable- and pastoral-based agroecosystems. Our
    assessment shows that globally, GHG emissions from domestic ruminants represent 11.6%
    (1.58 Gt C y–1) of total anthropogenic emissions, while cropping and soil-associated emissions
    contribute 13.7% (1.86 Gt C y–1). The primary source is soil erosion (1 Gt C y–1), which in
    the United States alone is estimated at 1.72 Gt of soil y–1. Permanent cover of forage plants
    is highly effective in reducing soil erosion, and ruminants consuming only grazed forages
    under appropriate management result in more C sequestration than emissions. Incorporating
    forages and ruminants into regeneratively managed agroecosystems can elevate soil organic C,
    improve soil ecological function by minimizing the damage of tillage and inorganic fertilizers
    and biocides, and enhance biodiversity and wildlife habitat. We conclude that to ensure longterm
    sustainability and ecological resilience of agroecosystems, agricultural production should
    be guided by policies and regenerative management protocols that include ruminant grazing.
    Collectively, conservation agriculture supports ecologically healthy, resilient agroecosystems
    and simultaneously mitigates large quantities of anthropogenic GHG emissions

    Read it for yourself at http://www.jswconline.org/content/71/2/156.full.pdf+html

    • Duncan Idaho says:

      This is a subject that my food fascist friends can’t approach, almost as bad as the AGW denial.

    • Javier says:

      So what they say is that ruminants produce 11.6% of emissions and produce about 5% of our food, while all crops produce 13.7% of emissions and about 85% of our food, plus a big percentage of the food of those ruminants.

      Did I understand it correctly? If we do need to start reducing land emissions I think it is clear where we should start cutting.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        If we do need to start reducing land emissions I think it is clear where we should start cutting.

        No we shouldn’t just cut! I don’t think it would be too radical an idea to outright ban industrial production of cows, chickens and pigs most of which are raised on corn!

        What can we do instead? Simple! Raise and eat insects.


        As insects are integrated and become a major part of the Western World’s diet the use of water for agricultural purposes will dramatically decline. Fresh water is an integral component of food production, and according to the UN, the agricultural world consumes 70% of the available fresh water in the world today. Beef production alone requires 22,000 liters of water to obtain 1 kg of meat. The quantity of water needed for the production of insects is much lower because many insects, like mealworms, are drought resistant and do not require as much water to thrive. The production of insects is less water, land, and energy intensive and produces less waste.

        But what about nutrition? Some people may suspect that insects are not as nutritious as meats. In fact, insects are comparable to meat for nutritional values. According to National Geographic mealworms provide protein, vitamins, and minerals on par with those found in fish and meat. Small grasshoppers provide the same protein and less fat than lean ground beef. A fist full of red ants contains more nutrition per calorie than fried eggs.

        Any questions?

        • Javier says:

          Do they taste good?

        • Reno Hightower says:


          How do you plan to accomplish this? You understand more than a few people will not go along.

          • Fred Magyar says:

            LOL! How do I plan to accomplish this?
            Why me?! But yes, of course I understand that more than a few western people will resist this idea. Tough noughies! So what else is new?

            (CNN)Pan-roasted red ant is a delicacy in Mexico, and a dish of sautéed mopane worms would not raise an eyebrow across Southern Africa. Over two billion people eat insects routinely but converting Western consumers to the joys of entomophagy remains a hard sell.

            North America’s first edible insect farm has taken up the challenge and a booming production line is reaching new markets across the continent and Europe.
            In January 2014, Jarrod Goldin along with his brothers Ryan and Darren, launched Next Millennium Farms (NMF), inspired by a landmark U.N. report which recommended insects for human consumption, and the success of cricket flour entrepreneur Pat Crowley on U.S. TV show Shark Tank.

            Eating insects will come to the western world probably a lot sooner than most people think. To anyone who knows how we raise and slaughter chickens, pigs and cows, it’s almost a no brainer, eating insects just makes a lot more sense.

            • farmboy says:

              Once you can feed catch and slaughter in a USDA facility, enough insects to supply your protein and other nutritional needs, and can supply me as well at a price comparable to other meats let me know. I promise to at least try a whole bowl full. In the meantime I enjoyed the muskovy drake we had for lunch. We brined him for 4 days in the fridge, for a tender and delightful roast.

              • Fred Magyar says:

                As I said before 2 billion people already regularly eat insects. There are already people producing what you ask in North America, you can google it!
                7 plus billion people cant eat muskovy drake, or pigs, cows and chickens if we want to continue living on this planet.

      • farmboy says:

        Javier tu lo tienes todo atraves. In English, Your not getting the point. You claim to be a biologist but you fail to recognize this vital point that the main difference between fertile soil and dirt is the amount and diversity of biology. The way that we have been farming, especially since the introduction of chemical fertilizers, and cheap tillage has been destroying the healthy communities of soil organisims.

        We need to rejenerate their farmed soils so that they can again perform the fuctions of healthy soil such as water infiltration, water holding capacity, supplying the soil biology with oxygen and CO2 exchanges. We can not afford to keep farming the way we have been.

        #1 The reason for most of the runoff into our rivers is because our soils have lost the ability to infiltrate the rain events. Lack of infiltration is the cause of the water soil erosion that this research points out is a couple times more than all the grain produced in those farmed acres. This is not only wasted water but is the main contributer to flooding events, and the massive dead zones on our planet.

        #2 The water holding capacity of clay is well known. What is not well known is that a lb of carbon in the soil can hold twice as much water as a lb of clay. The greater the water holding capacity the longer plants can grow into a drought, and the less soil nutrients will leach down into our water supply.

        #3 Plant form a symbiotic relationship with biology in the soil. The plant feeds the biology sugary root exudates and the biology pays the plant back with the nutrients that only biology can supply. This biology also builds the soil aggregates. BTW your driveway has very little soil aggregates while the lawn right beside it tries its best to build some, and you respond by running over it with a packer every year, then wonder why the grass dries up as soon as the sun comes out.

        FYI farmed soils still have some biology, otherwise no plants would grow. The problem is that we are continually bombing them with tillage, monocultures, 100s of chemicals and depriving them of food by not having living plants on those acres for as many days as possible.

        For these reasons and some more, I believe; If we are to succesfully transition to maintaining human food production while also rejenerating the acres where this food production is happening we need to take get our livestock out of CAFOs and integrate them into grain production acres. We need to plant more like 25% of farmed acres on a rotational basis into forage and multispecies covercrops and graze them with the livestock.

        • Javier says:


          I do get very well the importance of healthy soils and biodiversity in farming, as I am certified in ecological farming. 2015 was the International Year of Soils. Did you know?

          I just don’t think you need cattle at all to keep soils fertile and rich. Of course it is nice to have manure to fertilize soils, but there are other ways to do it.

          • farmboy says:

            You are always posting things like the earth is warming up but not to worry it will cool down soon. I don’t really know for sure one way or the other but I am convinced that our air and water are generally very contaminated with hazardous stuff, and our soils are generally in an extremely degraded state. I am also convinced that this is a big contributor to the fall of numerous civilizations and is at the core of the problems we now face in the Middle East and in North Africa etc. And as global trade collapses due to the high energy cost to produce refine and distribute oil, we will have the same problems being exposed in many many more parts of the planet.

            So you think we don’t need cattle, we have billions of people on this planet and their bodies crave animal proteins, including methionine, fats collagen etc. etc., since these are crucial to our health. There is no way that you will be able to take that away from them.

            What system do you propose that could fill this void?

            • Javier says:

              Farmboy, I think we should not be too worried about climate change, but I think we should be very worried about the rest of the things we are doing to the planet. Very high in my list of worries are habitat destruction, pollution, wildlife populations decline. We have to deal immediately with two huge problems that we are ignoring, excess population and fossil fuel decline.

              And we also have a big problem with excess livestock, and in terms of biomass cattle biomass is significantly larger than human biomass. This is a huge drain on resources and competes with wildlife populations.

              I was a vegan for nine months as proof of concept. There are a lot of vegetarians in the world. But we don’t need to be vegetarians. We require very little meat to be healthy, and above that it makes us unhealthy. We should reduce our cattle probably to about 1/5 of what we have now.

              In any case cattle meat consumption per person is already going down while poultry is still rising.

              • farmboy says:

                Javier So whats your beef with cattle? you seem to think that poultry is better. Do you have any Idea what your saying?

                The typical US conventional chicken’s diet is ~ 95% grain which is raised using extremely environmentally destructive methods. In beef production the brood cows are usually on grass and supplemented with hay in the winter. The calves are weaned around 7 month old and then they are fed an increasingly higher percentage of grain till the last couple months when they are usually fed a ~95% grain diet. And you think chicken is better?

                The changes this research is promoting is #1 to manage the grazing of those cows to rejenerate the soil. ie giving the grass time to regrow and fill its energy stores before the cows are allowed to graze it again. #2 to keep these calves on the grass instead of sending them to the feedlot at 7+ months to fatten up.

                I know you don’t care about all the carbon this paper shows would be sequestered, but as a biologist you should be able to appreciate what that means to healthy soil function. If you don’t get exited about this then I have to wonder if you were drinking beer instead of going to class. Your

                We grow most of our own vegetables and berries, using no chemicals, but lots of compost, but my sheep grazed pastures are kicking butt when it comes to soil rejeneration.

                If you were given a ten hectare, fairly flat, 1.5% SOM, cation exchange capacity of 10, and you were not allowed to use any compost, manure, straw or similar materials, produced outside of this 10 hectare plot. How long would it take you to get it to 2.5% or 4% or 6% SOM while growing vegetables, grains, or fruits? Using commonly accepted practices you would never get to 2.5% you would keep heading towards 1%.

                One of the farms included in this research has taken 1.5% SOM soil, ~20 years ago, and is now in the 6% range on a 1000+ acres. This rancher/farmer was going broke ~20 years ago when he started to implement these practices, and today is financially very stable. His soils water infiltration rate according to the Burleigh County Soil and Water Conservation in North Dakota, was 1/2 inch per hour, Today that is 8 inches per hour. He plants a lot of cover crops on his farmed acres and grazes them off with his cattle. He feeds hay for less than 2 months out of the year, so minimal fossil fuel imputs. When he does plant a crop of sunflowers, corn or oats he no longer uses chemical fertilizers, mechanical tillage, pesticides, GMOs, or fungicides and his crops normally produce more than the neighbors. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxIyKfWf9kU

                If you go onto the savory institute website or watch some of the holistic management international presentations on youtube you will see historical vs present day photos showing severe degredation in our national parks. While ranchers in those areas using holistic pratices are improving their soils.

                • Javier says:


                  I think I already explained my problem with cattle. There’s too many of them in the world (1.4 billion) and that doesn’t come free. It leads to a huge resource appropriation that has been taken from wild species.

                  And it is my opinion that we do not need so many of them. Our meat consumption rate for a lot of people in the planet is in my opinion excessive.

                  But of course I agree with you that any animal in the farm has to be integrated in holistic practices and using organic practices as much as possible. Manure is certainly a valuable resource for agriculture. It is a physics principle that anything that you take out of the farm as product has to be put back as compost, manure, or fertilizers, otherwise the land becomes unproductive very quickly and has to be left fallow to recover slowly.

                  We are learning much better practices and agriculture is progressing, but that is a completely different issue. The issue here is if a reduction in our livestock would be positive or negative for humanity, and I am convinced that it would be a positive, because:
                  – It would improve our health to eat less meat.
                  – It would free resources like land, water and grain that could be returned to nature or dedicated to human consumption to reduce our footprint.
                  – It would reduce contamination produced by our livestock and associated industries.
                  – It might lead to better conditions for the remaining livestock.

                  I understand you have a different view. I might agree that this is probably not one of our top problems, but I do believe that the increase in livestock population and biomass that has accompanied human population growth is part of our unsustainability problem.

                  • farmboy says:

                    Javier YOU SAY I think I already explained my problem with cattle. There’s too many of them in the world (1.4 billion) and that doesn’t come free. It leads to a huge resource appropriation that has been taken from wild species.

                    You are wrong On the dimbagombe community ranch in Zimbabwe for example. By managing cattle using holistic principles they have rejenerated the soil grass plants to the level that the ranch can now carry 5 times the amount of cattle compared to 25 years ago and they now have a perrenial stream instead of a seasonal wadi. This ranch is also becoming home to more and more wildlife including lions, elephants and many more according to Allan Savory en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Savory

                    YOU SAY and has to be left fallow to recover slowly. WRONG AGAIN It needs to grow all the plants it can be they called weeds by some people and then be grazed, dunged, and urinated on by herbivores, and left to again regrow in a way that maximizes the harvesting of photosynthetic energy. My managed pastures are rejenerating while the neighbors CRP acres just sit there.

                    YOU SAY It would reduce contamination produced by our livestock and associated industries. WRONG AGAIN My herbivores do not contaminate, they spread their fertilizer onto pastures loaded with dung beetles and earthworms to feed on it as well as on to the grass plants with deep roots and everything in place to capture all those nutrients.

                    If you want to get rid of livestock start on the chickens and hogs not the cattle. We have destroyed the massive herds of herbivores and their predators that once roamed, grazed, stomped, and defacated across vast areas of this planet and I see no other way to start bringing that back, unless we use the livestock we have and manage them in a way that imitates that .

                    There is no other realistic viable alternative, killing 50 to 80% of the worlds human population will not fly. Raising vegetables without lots of animal manure will only continue to degrade that soil.

                  • Javier says:


                    Those are rare examples of cattle raising done in a very good way. If everybody was raising cattle that way we probably wouldn’t be having this talk. But I also think that if everybody was raising cattle that way there would be a lot less cattle in the world, because a lot of cattle is being raised in places where there’s not enough pastures or not enough rain. The Mad Cow scare took place in the UK, a place that has sufficient rain, because cattle was fed processed food with animal proteins that included carcasses from sick cows.

                    For every cow raised properly on proper soil management there’s more than 10 not properly raised, and in Brazil they are turning rainforest into pastures to increase cattle ranching. I don’t think this is like the Bible, where finding a few just cows should save all the sinner cows. The ones that are not being properly raised should go.

                • Oldfarmermac says:

                  “Javier So whats your beef with cattle? you seem to think that poultry is better. Do you have any Idea what your saying?

                  The typical US conventional chicken’s diet is ~ 95% grain which is raised using extremely environmentally destructive methods. In beef production the brood cows are usually on grass and supplemented with hay in the winter. The calves are weaned around 7 month old and then they are fed an increasingly higher percentage of grain till the last couple months when they are usually fed a ~95% grain diet. And you think chicken is better?”


                  Javier generally knows what he is talking about, and he is right about chickens, cows, and chickens versus cows.

                  ( The one exception is that most commenting members of this forum think he is a fossil fuel shill. I don’t personally, since I have often interpreted things differently from the consensus view myself. I do think he is mistaken in thinking the risks of climate change are minor, compared to the consensus view. NOTE he does not deny that forced climate change is happening ,rather he argues the scale of it and the associated dangers are exaggerated. BIG difference. He might even conceivably be right, although my money is on the consensus view. )

                  This is where your argument goes to hell in a hand basket.

                  You think the grain fed to cows is produced any differently than the grain fed to chickens?

                  It’s produced the same way the grain fed to chickens is produced, and on the same farms, using the same “extremely environmentally destructive methods”.

                  A confined chicken raised entirely on highly concentrated feed, meaning grain with supplemental minerals, a little fish meal, soy, etc, uses less grain per pound of meat than a feed lot cow by a factor of FOUR, give or take.

                  It is also worth noting that chicken is better for us from a health point of view.

                  Hence chickens ARE a damned sight better, from an environmental point of view, than cows in a real world scenario.

                  You do know something about pasture management, I will give you credit for that.

                  You are dead on that a lot of ranchers have mismanaged their pasture lands to a horrible extent.

                  • farmboy says:

                    OFM you corectly pointed out that the cattle are being fed the same grains as the chickens. You did not point out that they are eating grass and drinkings mommas milk coming from grass and hay for the first ~650 lbs when they are weaned. A small percentage will go directly onto high percentage grain diets, but the majority will go onto pasture as stockers . During the summer more will go onto perrenial pastures or fed silage etc. in more northern latitudes and during winter many of them will go onto wheat pastures in places like Oklahoma Texas etc. I don’t know exactly at what weight that the average stocker goes onto high grain rations, but i would guess arond 950 lbs, so only the last ~425 lbs come from a high percentage grain ration.
                    This is the part that the mainstrean wolves and sheeple so not take into account when they correctly point out that the conversion of grain to live animal weight gain is ~6.3-1 feedlot beef, 3.2-1 hogs, 2-1 chickens.

                    For health reasons I only eat CAFO chicken to not offend the cook or similar situations so in other words almost none at all. I know what goes into them, mostly grains genetically screwed up, to produce Bt that upsets the chickens gut biology. Gains that were raised on soil so dead that it requires loads of chemicals fertilizers, to grow a sickly crop that requires pesticides and fungicides to produce only one thing; bushels.

                    But I do eat lots of pasture raised/grass fed Lamb Mutton Goat Goose and Beef to get the nutients I need to stay healthy.

                    In climates like mine and yours, that are humid for most of the year, poorly managed pastures are a lot more resiliant and stay in good shape. The places on the planet that are dry for a number of months is where mismanagment of grass has the more severe consequences. Flying into El Paso from Chicago one can not help but see the thousands of square miles of sand with the evenly spaced bunches of sagebrush/catus. West Texas was once home to great cattle ranches. Today very few cattle remain, the land has been so degraded that even the buffalo would have a miserable existance.

                    But we now have the knowledge and the ability to to rejenerate areas like this on a vast scale, and the only viable tool we have to do this are domestic herbivores managed in a way that imitates the vast herds of mastadons, wild horses, buffalo, elk, etc etc that roamed these vast areas. Massive herds kept tightly buched together and moving, across the landscape by the large predators now only in the fossil record of the recent past. As they moved across the landscape these herds would be, grazing, stomping, and defacating which rejenerates the growth of the grass, thereby feeding the soil biology, and building the deep carbon rich topsoil that the plains were known for, and that we continue to extract from and deplete at a totally unsustainable rate.

                    What I am saying here is not pie in the sky, we have ranchers on more than a million acres doing exactly this. There are soil scientist on the ground at the moment monitoring the increase of soil fuction and carbon content on many of those ranches http://soilcarboncoalition.org/ .

                    And the research paper that propeled me to start this conversation is a tremendous support for these claims. http://www.jswconline.org/content/71/2/156.full.pdf+html

                    These ranchers deserve our support and there are a lot more ranchers across the world are listening and I believe will soon be joining these ranks. More and sooner if we would pay them for the carbon they sequester. They would also benefit greatly if we were to tax nitrogen fertilizer the way we do tobacco.

                    As this is happening the wildlife is following. From bees to ground nesting birds, Elk and deer, coyotes, and bobcats, barn swallows and mice, hawks and beavers. As the grasslands are restored the wildlife is following and these ranchers love it. http://www.africacentreforholisticmanagement.org/ http://savory.global/network

                  • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                    Great post, farmboy.

              • Nick G says:

                We have to deal immediately with…fossil fuel decline.

                We agree. So, if you were king for the day, what public policies would you implement?

                • Javier says:

                  If I were in charge I would assemble a multidisciplinary task force to deal with the issue. I would not be as fool as to think that I can solve or even ameliorate the consequences of Peak Oil on my own.

                  Nevertheless my ideas go into building resilience into the system by decentralizing food and energy production so every community can withstand better a reduction in transportation or energy. Fuel consumption should be discouraged the way it is done in Europe, through high taxes, and public transportation should be encouraged.

                  Renewable energy should be supported, but in a distributed way, not big projects like Ivanpah or large wind farms that are a hazard for wildlife.

                  I would try to standardize the building of smaller nuclear plants of the latest generation to reduce associated costs and replace aging plants, while investing in research of Thorium molten salt reactors that appear promising. Nuclear power should also be distributed and designed to back up renewables, with short time ramp up and reduction of energy output.

                  I would also end the participation of non-interested parties in the oil market by heavily regulating the futures market so speculators cannot participate, and I would consider changing the oil markets to prevent too low or too high oil prices by introducing delays that could allow a better match between supply and demand. There is no a priori reason why the last barrel should determine the price of all the rest.

                  I would preserve knowledge by building distributed centers that store knowledge in ways that are resilient to lack of energy and technology obsolescence. I would do the same with seeds.

                  More complex things like dealing with the debt problem, and a slow growing economy require more complex heads than mine.

                  The idea is that if collapse is inevitable, we should be prepared to better deal with it, and if it is not inevitable then we should try to avoid it.

                  • wimbi says:

                    I gotta problem with all that, J.

                    I can’t find much in it to object to.

                    My big difference with that more-or-less standard view is that I, being in the invention business, think things will go the right way re energy far faster than most people here think possible, once the ball gets rolling.

                    Reasons. 1) No law of physics says it can’t.
                    2) There’s a huge pile of great energy stuff we already have, just sitting around being ignored. If we decide to, all we have to do is drag it out into daylight.
                    3) People are pretty good at getting over scary-looking threats if/when they notice it’s a threat.

                  • Nick G says:


                    That’s great. I’d say we’re very much in agreement on the broad strokes of What Should Be Done.

                    High taxes on fossil fuels in general, and oil in particular, would greatly accelerate the transition towards EVs, rail, wind, solar and nuclear. European drivers use 18% as much fuel as Americans, largely due to high taxes, and that’s still falling reasonably quickly. The only reason Europe uses as much oil as it does is that commercial and industrial consumers don’t pay the same kinds of taxes. Make everyone pay those taxes and you’d see real change happening quite fast.

                    That’s the important thing.

                    Now, we can argue about smaller details – that can be interesting and informative. For instance, the threat to wildlife from CSP plants like Ivanpah, and from wind farms, is greatly exaggerated by the forces of BAU. Seriously: the threat to birds from CSP and wind farms is extraordinarily small in the overall scheme of things.

                  • wimbi says:

                    Nick. Yep, every time I think it over, I come to something like the feebate as a solution to the energy situation.

                    Carbon is taxed at the point of extraction, and that money automatically goes right back to everybody, equally.

                    A tremendous incentive to use less carbon than the other guy.

                    Even for the hole driller in ND, who would be looking for wind to dig his oil hole.

                    And the car operator. who would be looking for ones that used less or no ff’s.
                    And of course, finding them immediately.

                    That’s why I visualize a super-speedy change.

        • Duncan Idaho says:

          You claim to be a biologist but you fail to recognize this vital point that the main difference between fertile soil and dirt is the amount and diversity of biology.

          Maybe at Bob Jones University?

          His knowledge is suspect, and I have taught biology.

      • farmboy says:

        on This graph we can see that if we continue our current cropping system and only get the livestock out onto the land and do a good job of rotational grazing agriculture in North America would become a bigger net carbon sink .6 Gigatons /yr than the net carbon footprint it currently is .3 gigatons/yr.

        I don’t know of any other carbon sequestering mechanism that has even close to this potential and it would cost us so little to make the changes. The additional benefits of reduced water runoff, replenishing of our aquifers, increased wildlife habitat, etc etc would pay off multiple times.

        If you didn’t catch it; it appears to me that Royal Dutch Shell is looking into this as a way to pay ranchers for carbon credits.


    • Jef says:

      Thanks Farmboy – The added benefit is much more nutritious eggs, dairy, and meats.

      Fields are for grazing not for combines. Grains make unhealthy people and animals but sure do make a few people very wealthy.

  32. Oldfarmermac says:

    Hi Javier ( and every body)

    Note what the authors actually said.

    ” Permanent cover of forage plants
    is highly effective in reducing soil erosion, and ruminants consuming only grazed forages
    under appropriate management result in more C sequestration than emissions. Incorporating
    forages and ruminants into regeneratively managed agroecosystems can elevate soil organic C,
    improve soil ecological function by minimizing the damage of tillage and inorganic fertilizers
    and biocides, and enhance biodiversity and wildlife habitat.”

    I am not so sure about the science just now catching up part, this sort of thing is pretty old hat to pro farmers who keep up with ag research.

    As you know better than ANYBODY else in this forum, politically driven consensus can wander far afield of what the facts actually indicate, depending on who evaluates the facts.

    I wish to make it PERFECTLY clear up front that I do understand VERY well that the consumption of large amounts of fatty beef, and the consumption of large amounts of dairy products result in severe long term health problems, in personal and public terms, according to the consensus judgement of the health care profession. I agree with this consensus.

    And while I am a farmer, I am also perfectly willing to acknowledge indisputable facts such as the loss of soil, the pollution of river and ground water with run off fertilizers and pesticides, etc. associated with the production of feed for cattle.

    SO- while we need to change our ways when it comes to eating so much grain fed as opposed to grass fed beef, etc, we nevertheless need to understand that meat, especially lean meat, in moderate quantities, is a super food, rich in what makes us grow up big and strong and healthy and all that sort of thing. Ditto dairy foods, in MODERATE amounts,especially for kids.

    The relevant FACTS in a nutshell, are that there huge expanses of land that are not suitable for field crop production which are well suited to grazing cattle, and that the world has an ever tightening food supply problem. We need that meat.

    I live in a place where local farmers graze a LOT of cows, and we feed them thru the winter with hay, almost exclusively. We do NOT have soil erosion problems, and we have near zero runoff problems,because fertilizers are used sparingly and quickly absorbed by well established fast growing grass. We seldom ever plow a pasture, we just reseed it with a sod planter attachment if necessary. We NEVER apply pesticides to hay fields, with the exception of a VERY few guys who grow some alfalfa.

    So grazing animals are ok, in terms of the big picture, if you take everything into consideration.

    Feedlot cows are basically where the problem arises.

    What we really need to do to solve our environmental problems is to lower the population.

    Environmentalists aren’t going to shut down the oil industry, at least not within the next few decades, nor the coal industry, at least not until there is enough gas and enough renewable capacity to make up the difference, and the econut vegetarians types aren’t going to shut down the beef and dairy industries.

    But there is hope that people can gradually be educated to eat MORE APPLES and LESS BEEF. 😉

    (Yes, that IS a plug for my friends who have not yet retired, lol. )

    At least ninety nine percent of all environmentally concerned people I know drive or ride in cars on frequent occasions, lol.

    • Javier says:


      Essentially I agree. I am not too big into banning things and forcing people to change lifestyles. I know as well as you do that there are a lot of lands that are not suited for cultivation because they are too steep and get too much rain to build good enough soils. They are adequate for forests and pastures. Europe has several thousand years of experience in cattle raising, so pastures are a natural part of the environment here. They are an ecosystem on which many plants, insects, birds and small mammals rely to survive. They are an asset.

      But we have taken meat consumption way too far and that is neither good for our health, nor for our animals and not either for the environment. So changing that through education and regulation is a good thing. We all know that many of our animals are being raised in very poor conditions for their well being just for the economical benefit of a few, with a secondary effect the increased health care costs from a population that is not eating properly.

      I am all in favor of making life easy for people raising cattle on lands not suited for other use, and making life difficult for people raising cattle under non-humane conditions, and putting limits to meat imports. This has the secondary effect of increasing meat prices, which will be unpopular but good for our health. Also cattle ranchers will get better prices so they will live better. It will also be better for the environment. I suppose MacDonalds will strongly disagree.

      • Nick G says:

        I am not too big into banning things and forcing people to change lifestyles.

        I agree. It doesn’t work well to just ban things.

        I am all in favor of making life easy for people raising cattle on lands not suited for other use, and making life difficult for people raising cattle under non-humane conditions, and putting limits to meat imports.

        This is the way I would go: incentivizing change through taxing bad things and subsidizing good things. This internalizes external costs and creates gradual change through price signals. Really, it’s just good accounting, like any large organization does with it’s internal cost allocations.

  33. Duncan Idaho says:

    Marin Carbon Project:
    It is a bit more complicated than one thinks.
    (I live on a ranch)


    • Bob Nickson says:

      Great link. Thanks for sharing it. You may also find this article in Craftmanship Magazine interesting. It’s about John Wick, he’s one of the members of the Marin Carbon Project’s steering committee.


      “Wick sprinkled a mere one-half inch of compost on a few hillside pastures, and left some adjacent fields alone. Then he let his cattle graze both areas, where they added extra fertilizer with their manure. On the composted fields, plant growth rose dramatically. According to several peer-reviewed studies, his soil, which had been losing carbon, gained an additional 0.4 ton of carbon on each acre. And the gains have continued year after year, without Wick having to spread any more compost.”

      • Duncan Idaho says:

        Perennial grasses on grazed range land would be the best solution to carbon sequestration.
        Anyone want to remove those ecosystem killing grains, and put back 30 million bison?

      • farmboy says:

        Spreading all that compost would definitely give the soil organisms a boost and act as a kickstarter for carbon sequestration. Coupled with the managed grazing that they are doing you would expect the soil to sequester carbon by the tons/hectare/yr. This is all right and good.

        The objection I might make is that this compost is being taken from one place and spread onto the researched fields to show a dramatic carbon sink effect.

        • Duncan Idaho says:

          I agree, there is no free lunch.
          But one can chose a nutritious free lunch.

  34. Oldfarmermac says:


    According to this article, recent research shows that ten percent of stars similar to our own , which are known by observation to produce superflares, have magnetic fields, etc similar to ours.

    So – While the odds any given year are miniscule, such a flare from our sun over historical time is probably a high probability event.

    I wonder if any body has yet predicted the odds.

    I also wonder how effective a metal garage would be as a Faraday cage, or if removing the computer from a truck or tractor and putting it in an improvised cage would be sufficient to get it running again.

    • Anon says:

      Hi OFM,
      in 1972 Larry Niven won the Hugo prize with the short story “Incostant moon”, inspired precisely by this notion. Look it, you won’t regret it 🙂

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Essentially I agree. I am not too big into banning things and forcing people to change lifestyles.

      Really?! Maybe we shouldn’t have forced people to change their lifestyles and stop using CFCs?
      There are plenty of circumstances where we are more than justified to ban practices and force lifestyle changes on people.

      Europe has several thousand years of experience in cattle raising, so pastures are a natural part of the environment here. They are an ecosystem on which many plants, insects, birds and small mammals rely to survive. They are an asset.

      Perhaps that’s true in Europe but, case in point, clear cutting of the Amazon rain forest to grow crops and raise cattle. That is an example of a really really bad practice with terrible consequences for the rain forest ecosystem. The negatives far out weigh the positives!

      I don’t have any data to back this up but I have a hunch that properly managed insect farms in the Amazon could probably produce a lot more protein for human consumption with a lot less environmental damage than monoculture crops and cattle raising.

      As far as how they taste maybe you can ask one of the two billion plus humans who already eat insects on a regular basis or you can try them for yourself. If you like shrimp you’ll probably like most arthropods. But once you process insects into protein you can pretty much make them taste any way you want. I’m not a big fan of soy burgers but I think you get the idea.


      Nutritionally, crickets have half the fat and a third more protein than beef. Environmentally, crickets need only about two pounds of feed per pound of usable meat; for beef, it takes 25 pounds of feed for the same pound of meat. Likewise, it only takes about a gallon of water to raise one pound of crickets, compared to 2,000 gallons of water for a pound of cow. With the growing freshwater shortages in many parts of the country and around the world, that’s a significant impact. On top of all that, crickets produce 100 times fewer greenhouse gasses and have a true food conversion efficiency of almost 20 times higher than beef.
      Source: Wikipedia Entomophagy and FAO’s Edible Insects – Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security.


      • wimbi says:

        Or, if you don’t like those cricket legs between your teeth, run the crickets thru a fish or fowl first, and then eat them.

        I used to get my lunch by catching one medium pan fish from our highly productive pond, well fed on bugs, and running it thru a microwave in the appropriate sandwich.

        The fish were so eager to hit anything thrown in that I didn’t even have to bait my hook.

        People in the west should take lessons from Chinese aquaculture. Ponds can be hugely productive.

    • Doug Leighton says:

      Hi Mac,

      If empirical statistics rule flare frequency, superflares, with energy 1,000 times larger than the largest solar flares, might occur once in 10,000 years. Of course, the period of observations of the Sun (with telescopes) is 400 years. So, if we observe 10,000 solar type stars (similar to our Sun) for one year, we get data similar to the data obtained from 10,000 years observations of the Sun.

      Meanwhile, as Jones and Warner point out, every hour of every day: 3.7 million barrels of oil are extracted from the Earth, 932,000 tons of coal are removed from the Earth, 395 million cubic meters of natural gas are removed from the Earth, 4.1 million tons of carbon dioxide are put into the Earth’s atmosphere and 9,300 more people inhabit our poor planet. Depressingly, according to Jones and Warner, there’ll be about 11 billion people on Earth by 2100 (compared to 7.2 billion today).

      Perhaps your concerns about extreme solar activity are misplaced. 🙂


      • Doug Leighton says:

        Digging a bit deeper, superflares occur on Sun like stars (5600-6000K and slow rotation) with a frequency such that superflares with an energy of 10^34 to 10^35 erg (100 to1000 times of the largest solar flare) occur once per 800 to 5000 years. And, using actual Kepler (satellite) data, researchers found 365 superflares (10^33 to 10^36 erg) on 148 solar type stars (among 80,000 stars) during a recent 120 day search interval. According the key authors (Shibata et al. 2013), the necessary time to generate a magnetic flux of 10^24 Mx that can produce superflares of 10^35 erg is only 40 years. And, not surprisingly there are a lot of statistics floating around on frequency of solar flares, microflares, and nanoflares. Beyond that you are faced with math that becomes rather intimidating.

        Now, this is probably what you want: according to the hardcore astrophysics boys, if a superflare with energy 1000 times larger than the largest solar flares were to occur on our Sun all artificial satellites would be damaged; all astronauts and some airline passengers would be exposed to fatal radiation; ozone layer depletion would occur; radio communication trouble could occur globally; a world wide blackout would occur; and, all nuclear power stations would lose electricity and hence wind up in a state of meltdown.

        So Mac, perhaps your concerns about extreme solar activity aren’t misplaced after all. 🙂

    • Javier says:


      There are two large solar flares registered in the last two millennia (774 AD and 1460 AD) that show up in the cosmogenic record and make the Carrington event of 1859 look like a spark.

      The chances of these millennial events are calculated at 0.8% per decade.

      A Carrington type of event that doesn’t even register in the cosmogenic proxies is thought to be 10 times less intense and 10 times more frequent. It should be intense enough to wreck havoc in our electronics.

      Solar flares are not electrical in nature. They are coronal mass ejections that multiply Solar wind, so they are formed by charged particles (mainly protons) that travel at very high speed. They have two effects, a direct one as they interact with atoms on Earth, and an indirect one as they disrupt the Earth magnetic shield allowing the arrival of large amounts of cosmic rays.

      The chances are small but the consequences are acute and very severe. Our civilization would stop instantly. Not sure how we could restart it, since we use computers, electronics and robots to make computers. It could be a much worse danger than climate change for all we know.

      • Doug Leighton says:

        “Solar flares are not electrical in nature. They are coronal mass ejections….”

        No: a solar flare is an explosion on the Sun that happens when energy stored in ‘twisted’ magnetic fields (usually above sunspots) is suddenly released. During flares radiation is emitted across the entire electromagnetic spectrum from radio at the long wavelength end, through optical emission to x-rays and gamma rays. Solar flares are different than ‘coronal mass ejections’ (CMEs), which were once thought to be initiated by solar flares. CMEs are bubbles of gas threaded with magnetic field lines that are ejected from the Sun over the course of several hours. Although some are accompanied by flares, it is now known that most CMEs are not associated with flares.

      • sunnnv says:

        “Our civilization would stop instantly. Not sure how we could restart it, since we use computers, electronics and robots to make computers. It could be a much worse danger than climate change for all we know.”

        The effects of flares and CMEs on/near the Earth’s surface are radio interference and geomagnetic storms. Astronauts in orbit, satellites, and high-flying aircraft will get some increased radiation, but there is a warning network for this, so except for a few astronauts, this won’t be too bad. SpaceX can launch new satellites cheap, maybe they’ll be more radiation hard.
        Space Weather Prediction Center

        Satellites are also affected more by atmospheric drag, since the upper layers of the atmosphere are often heated and expand.

        So, radio interference – yes, it might disrupt ground-to-air, over-the-horizon, and other radio bands (including making old GPS inaccurate for the time) for a few days.

        A geomagnetic storm will induce currents in long conductive things, historically telegraphy wires, these days electrical transmission lines and pipelines (since modern communications uses fiber optics).

        The longer the transmission line, the more the induced current possible. This typically doesn’t damage the line (there are fuses/circuit breakers), but attached transformers can saturate – the frequency of the induced current is nearly DC.
        Transmission line operators also get warnings.
        They can shut things down before transformers burn up, or, with a resister in the transformer neutral to ground connection, limit the induced current to safe levels (if their company cares about spending the money). There are other (proposed) hardware solutions.

        Note the same situation can occur in a high altitude electromagnetic pulse induced by a high altitude nuclear explosion.

        A typical FERC study:

        Last I’ve heard, industry is whining (like the airlines whined about lockable, break-in resistance cockpit doors, then 911 happened), so not much physical preparation has happened, but I’m reasonably sure they’d just shut things down rather than destroy their high voltage power transformers.
        And FERC now has some mandate to develop and enforce standards for hardening the grid.

        Pipeline operators have to contend with crazy currents interfering with cathodic protection (essentially electroplating “to” the pipe, so it doesn’t corrode), and reducing the life of the pipe.

        Since the induced current depends on the orientation (along or cross to the line), length and frequency of the geomagnetically induced current, most distribution lines (the local power lines) will not be affected (too short),
        nor will local electronics like your laptop. So after the storm passes,
        as long as the long-distance transmission grid comes back up,
        we should be fairly fine.
        Otherwise it will certainly be more acute of a problem than AGW.
        Might be nice to have a battery backed PV system on one’s roof as insurance…

        A HEMP would catch us by surprise, and probably would wallop the grid, unless we deal with the induced current problem with hardware (resisters on the neutral, etc.).


        I assume that a high voltage DC line would just adjust its voltage and essentially ignore the GIC, or at least it ought to be designed this way.

        A nice, though technical presentation from SWPC, a few pics of cooked transformers.

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          Thanks guys,

          I am not losing any sleep over the possibility of a superflare, but when some minimal preparatory measures can be taken in minutes at trivial cost, it is wise to know what measures might actually work.

          I know that an EMP bomb is supposed to be capable of frying the computers used in motor vehicles. So apparently a flare of sufficient magnitude would do the same.

          Now the practical question again.

          Will a steel framed garage clad in steel sheet metal with some windows in it provide significant Faraday cage protection to a vehicle parked inside it?

          My generators have circuit boards. How well would I have to cover them up with sheet metal cages to protect the boards ? There would not be time to dismantle them and put the boards in a purpose designed cage.

          Only one house, out of thousands, burns annually. Just about every body has fire insurance.

          Maybe the odds of a super flare in any given year are higher than the annual odds of a house fire.

  35. R Walter says:

    Off topic, so sorry.

    If You go buy fifty baby chicks, in six weeks the spring chickens will ready for the feast. They’ll eat a lot of bugs. A lot more than you can.

    Buy a hundred and you’ll eat fried and grilled chicken for a while, no problem. You can plan meals in advance.

    A hundred chickens eating bugs will make a dent into the bug population. You’ll starve to death trying to compete with chickens, they are in the big leagues when it comes to bug eating. Give up early. In the meantime you can take your fishing pole and catch fish.

    Nobody has a bug farm. You go and look for something else to eat. Bugs aren’t on the menu.

    Beer contains all the nutrients to keep you alive, so barley, hops, and yeast replace bugs.

    No bug bars out there, plenty of bars that will make sure there is lots of beer. How many recipes are there for fried chicken? Colonel Sanders wasn’t about to fry bugs with the famous recipe made so famous with chicken.

    Don’t see any bug trucks, beer trucks prevent riots and keep the peace. Beer beats bugs by a country mile.

    It’s not Buffalo Wild Bugs, it is Buffalo Wild Wings. People are not going to a restaurant to eat bugs. It will be a waste of gas and cab fare.

    Uber is here, time to go eat bugs. Can’t wait.

    • Duncan Idaho says:

      Chickens are essentially carnivores.
      I have some in the yard right now munching away.

    • farmboy says:

      R Walter I enjoy the way you write.

      During the war years I understand it was considered patriotic to keep a couple of chickens. Just a couple of chickens can do well on not much more than a families table scraps and a yard to hunt bugs whenever the grounds isn’t frozen. they will give you a couple scrumptious eggs a day. During the summer you can add a few more for meat production as well.

      To this day as much as the postal guys hate it, they will overnight day old poultry all over this country. Your hearing this from a guy that has a couple hundred free range egg laying hens and egg laying ducks on his farm.

      • Duncan Idaho says:

        The eggs are off the charts.
        You can’t purchase them from a corporate store.

      • Greenbub says:

        They often put a lemon wedge in with the chicks so they have a little something to peck at.

    • Jef says:

      “If You go buy fifty baby chicks,…” in six weeks you will have 25 hens and 25 roosters. Dress out say 24 roos, freeze them and have roast chicken dinner every other week. Now you will get 2 dozen eggs everyday for the next couple years.

      Nothing beats ducks for bug foraging. Nothing beats duck eggs for nutrition.

      • farmboy says:

        Jeff The chicken industry would kill to have hens that lay an egg a day for years.

        If your 25 hens average 1 dozen per day for even 2 years they would be doing exeptional.

        and forget that once the hawks and foxes find them.

        looks good on paper though

        • Jef says:

          You take it too literal – I keep over 40-50 birds at a time and they do slow down in the winter but I give them free run of the hoop houses then and they do keep laying all winter. Second year I do cull quite a bit but many still lay consistently.

          Like I said elsewhere I am a major fan of ducks. We have two large very live ponds so the ducks are able to forage very well as long as I don’t get greedy and over load them.

  36. Greenbub says:


    “In 2015, the seven biggest publicly traded Western energy companies, including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC, replaced just 75% of the oil and natural gas they pumped, on average, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of company data. It was the biggest combined drop in inventory that companies have reported in at least a decade.”

  37. sunnnv says:

    re: grow weeds….

    “Weeds are three times as efficient as food plants, maybe we should start making weeds that produce food and end up with a hardier and more efficient food production system, maybe twice as effective.”

    GoneFishing – is that 3x number really true?

    The ecologist Paul Colinvaux in the “The Efficiency of Life” chapter of:

    says all plants, when considering the full growing season, end up about 2% efficient under ideal conditions.
    Note that under low light levels, efficiency can rise to 20%, because at full sunlight plants are CO2 limited (but increasing the CO2 levels has tradeoffs).
    While there is some efficiency difference between C3 and C4 plants, those depend on temperature as well.

    This paper from Brazil
    Physiology of Crops and Weeds Under Biotic and Abiotic Stresses
    says in section 5.1:
    “Santos et al. (2003) evaluated the [Light Use Efficiency] of bean and soybean plants and of weed species Euphorbia heterophylla, Bidens pilosa and Desmodium tortuosum, and concluded that crops accumulated more dry mass per unit of light intercepted than any of the weeds studied. These authors also reported that, although the weeds were less efficient than crops in using light, they present high competitive ability in field conditions due to be more efficient in the extraction and use of other resources, like water and nutrients.”
    Unfortunately for me “Santos et al. (2003)” is in Portuguese.
    So some crops already have better photosynthetic efficiency than their weeds.

    Note that food crops have been bred/selected for high yield of food parts, which is unnatural – plants select for survivability/reproduction “in the wild”. Thus food plants have been hijacked into working for people instead of for themselves, and weeds are just exploiting the easy niches that farmers provide.

    I have heard of attempts at increasing photosynthetic efficiency, but there are lots of moving pieces to bioengineer, and most of the meaty papers are behind paywalls.
    There is this open access one:
    Will C3 crops enhanced with the C4 CO2-concentrating mechanism live up to their full potential (yield)?
    “Sustainably feeding the world’s growing population in future is a great challenge and can be achieved only by increasing yield per unit land surface. Efficiency of light interception and biomass partitioning into harvestable parts (harvest index) has been improved substantially via plant breeding in modern crops. The conversion efficiency of intercepted light into biomass still holds promise for yield increase. This conversion efficiency is to a great extent constrained by the metabolic capacity of photosynthesis, defined by the characteristics of its components. Genetic manipulations are increasingly applied to lift these constraints, by improving CO2 or substrate availability for the photosynthetic carbon reduction cycle. Although these manipulations can lead to improved potential growth rates, this increase might be offset by a decrease in performance under stress conditions. In this review, we assess possible positive or negative effects of the introduction of a CO2-concentrating mechanism in C3 crop species on crop potential productivity and yield robustness.”

    The answer is: “we don’t know yet, but there are many possible negative side-effects”.

    I hope population control efforts get stronger… and wouldn’t bank on bioengineering increased light use efficiency.
    Think about it, plants have been around for hundreds of millions of years, evolving into a few hundred thousand species. If it were physicochemically possible/easy to increase photosynthesis efficiency by radically higher amounts, given the payoff that the plant could put that much more structure/energy into reproduction (more seeds/attractive fruit/etc.) and survival (nastier toxins/thorns/etc.) instead of growth/maintenance, it seems like it would be happening/observed.
    Lots of moving parts and thermodynamic tradeoffs in the Calvin cycle.
    And all you got to start with is sunlight, CO2, water, and peptide based enzymes, all in a plant-grown structure that needs to have “equipment” to grow/repair itself while containing water-based fluids.

    What a great advantage inorganic PV has – no water/fluids/self growth/self repair needed, and it gets to hide behind a nice sheet of glass (hopefully clean and unshaded), sometimes with a tracking device to keep it optimally pointed to the sun.

    • Javier says:

      Crops do not compete well with weeds. Many weeds are first colonizer plants that get quickly to places where the soil has no vegetable cover and grow very fast and produce a huge number of seeds very fast. That is their strategy. Many of them are able to grow on very poor soils so they are useful too.

      Farmers have been dealing with weeds for thousands of years and they have done it very effectively, getting a crop year after year. We continuously develop new ways to deal with weeds and not all of them are chemical, they are also mechanical (plastic covers) and biological (cover crops, and animals).

      The fact that weeds are more efficient growers than crops is not a serious problem.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        Hi Javier,

        Well said.

        Sometimes even full fledged biologists don’t seem to understand APPLIED evolution as it works in the agricultural game.

        The “goal” is to “win” the reproductive race in the evolutionary “game”. Weeds are free to compete as best they can, and their only “job” is to produce the seed that produce the next generation. Hence they compete very well indeed, and farmers spend countless hours and countless dollars on weed control.

        The “goal” of crop plants is to do what the farmer wants, because the farmer thru ARTIFICIAL SELECTION forces crop plants to do what HE wants. Plants that measure up to the farmers standards win the reproductive game. It doesn’t matter if the rest are as tough and prolific as johnson grass , he does not deliberately plant their seed.

        This places an enormous handicap on the crop plant, which is why weeds can easily out compete crops, and in turn, why old farts such as myself who grew up on farms wore out “gooseneck hoes” chopping weeds out of the corn and green beans while city boys who had to work worked in stores or delivering the paper or helping THEIR daddies do whatever their daddies did.

        People who DON’T farm seldom have any grasp of the true nature of the way crop production actually WORKS in the real world. Sure it is possible to plant one hill of cantaloupes in a lush hillside grassy area, and leave them all alone, and go back and get a basket full of nice lopes. But it is five times more likely you will get nothing.

        And if you are growing lopes to sell, rather than for the table, you won’t get enough wholesale for that basket full to pay the cost of having a worker walk up the hillside once to plant them, and once to harvest them, because four out of five times, he will come back with an empty basket.

        Yet I have watched movies wherein the producers are all gaga about such “farming” techniques.

        You would need ten acres to get one pickup truck load of lopes this way, where as the conventional way, you can get ten pickup loads off one acre, with a hundredth part of the labor.

        We will give up industrial farming if and only if and only WHEN we have absolutely NO choice in the matter. This is not a matter of technology any more than it is a practical cultural matter.

        It wouldn’t happen even if the technology permitted it, which it does not, at this time, and most likely never will permit it, so long as our population is so grossly out of proportion to what nature ” intended”.

        Nature does not have “intentions” of course, and “allowed” us to invent agriculture. Agriculture allowed us to go into extreme overshoot, compared to what our numbers would be as hunter gatherers.

        Thus we CANNOT give up intensive agriculture without suffering a cataclysmic population crash. We would need at least a couple of dozen earths to support seven billion hunter gatherers.

        The practical cultural aspect of this matter is that the average young woman in a modern country is about as interested in grubbing in the dirt and growing calluses on her hands as she is in working in a cat house. Her average young man would rather fight than switch, as the old cigarette ad used to put it.

        Now as bad as it is,from an ecological point of view, industrial farming is keeping just about every last member of this forum alive. We may have one or two members who are growing or gathering most of their food. Paulo comes to mind, but I can’t think of anybody else at the moment.

        My family used to grow nearly all of our own when I was a kid, because we were short of money, and growing it made great economic sense. The average farmer these days grows less than one percent of what his immediate family eats. His time is too valuable to be grubbing in the dirt of a personal truck, fruit, and meat farm.

        I can easily earn enough money to buy a bushel of nice potatoes in a quarter of the time it takes me just to plant and dig them,never mind plowing, weeding, applying pesticides, fertilizers, etc.

        I couldn’t grow coffee, sugar, citrus fruits, etc no matter how hard I worked at it. I will never harvest a tomato in March unless I build a greenhouse, or move at least a thousand miles.

        If you are a commercial farmer, gardening is a self supporting hobby, not a life style. An acre of sweet corn is NOT gardening, that’s small scale commercial production.

        Some small scale farmers do call themselves market gardeners of course. That’s good pr.

        • Duncan Idaho says:

          I grow and gather about 50%+ of my food.
          But I live in Sonoma County, and can grow year around, with mushrooms, fish and berries(have at lest a acre in blackberry) a significant part of the year.
          Have horses and llamas for good fertilizer input, apples, apricots, pears, walnuts, olives, plums, grapes, figs.
          And chickens.
          Fats and oils are the current challenge, although we do have a community olive press.
          Calories come from potatoes mostly.

          But even with these resources, I need outside goods.

          • wimbi says:

            I haven’t counted, but just an eyeball check says we get a quite large fraction of all of food right here on our very thinly populated hardwood hill sides, which get pretty cold and pretty hot.

            I still have no problem zapping a groundhog, rabbit or deer with one 22 pop. I don’t shoot until I have a sure shot. Easy with the deer population we have here. We only eat two a year, almost no effect on their numbers.

            All of those critters are slightly obese.

            With a little wit, we could make the whole planet a garden of Eden, with no mine tailings in the garden, either.

            (How many more vehicles do we need in the next decade? None.}

            Makes me all in favor of low population – of people, that is.

  38. Daniel says:

    Potentially interesting summary of average well costs (http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/drilling/pdf/upstream.pdf):

    Here’s how well costs dropped in recent years:
    •Bakken well costs were $7.1 million in 2014, but $5.9 million in 2015.
    •Eagle Ford wells averaged $7.6 million in 2014, but $6.5 million in 2015.
    •Marcellus wells were $6.6 million in 2014, but $ 6.1 million in 2015.
    •Midland Basin wells (in the Permian Basin) were $7.7 million in 2014, but dropped to $7.2 million in 2015.
    •Delaware Basin wells (in the Permian Basin) cost $6.6 million in 2014 and fell to $5.2 million during 2015.

    IHS expects rig rates to fall by 5-10 percent this year, but increase 5 percent in 2017 and 2018

    Interesting to note, that apart from Delaware Basin, well costs had dropped by less then 20%.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Thanks for the comment and links to the paper, sunnnv, interesting stuff.

      “Santos et al. (2003) evaluated the [Light Use Efficiency] of bean and soybean plants and of weed species Euphorbia heterophylla, Bidens pilosa and Desmodium tortuosum, and concluded that crops accumulated more dry mass per unit of light intercepted than any of the weeds studied. These authors also reported that, although the weeds were less efficient than crops in using light, they present high competitive ability in field conditions due to be more efficient in the extraction and use of other resources, like water and nutrients.”
      Unfortunately for me “Santos et al. (2003)” is in Portuguese.
      So some crops already have better photosynthetic efficiency than their weeds.

      I went and found the paper and read it. Yes, the soybean plants accumulated more dry mass per unit of light intercepted than any of the weeds studied. However that accumulation occurred mostly in the leaves of the plant. Which is it bit counterproductive if your intended productions is the bean.

      This study is a good example of my beef with the oversimplified comments proclaiming the benefits of increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 for plants. Especially from engineers who have zero understanding of the complexities of plant physiology let alone how ecosystems work. To say these people suffer from extreme Dunning-Kruger effects is being kind! But when someone with a PhD in microbiology does it, it really pisses me off because they should know better!

      So yeah, CO2 is good for some plants but how is it impacting the ecosystems and what changes are occurring and at what rates and what are those impacts. How for example does that affect insect populations? Etc… etc…

      • wimbi says:

        All of that supports my pyrolysis path to paradise, in which I cook just any biomass, leaves and all, use the gas for fuel (electricity, etc) and put the carbon/ash back into the ground.

        I do this every day here. Easy, altho I tend to take a large fraction of the carbon and use it for other fun things, like the potty chair. Carbon-enhancement. Ha!

  39. IanH says:

    Saudi Oil Production May Be In Decline


    While it is suspected that Saudi Arabia is looking to pump as much oil as it can in order to push down prices, fact is that production is in decline.

    Fact that drilling activity has increased by about 35% since April 2014, while production seems to have been in decline since September suggests that there may be field decline issues.

    If this turns out to be more than just a temporary maintenance related production decline, we may be getting close to the beginning of a sustained oil price rally.


  40. IanH says:

    Oops, just spotted that the Saudi seeking alpha piece was posted on 2/28, not 3/28 – apologies if it has already been posted/debated to death here!.

    • sunnnv says:

      Interesting. Thanks, Paulo.

      BTW, TheTyee had this one on
      Steam Injection Fractures Caprock in Big Alberta Spill, Regulator Confirms

      “Three years after an eruption of 10,000 barrels of melted bitumen contaminated the boreal forest and groundwater near Cold Lake, Alberta, the provincial energy regulator has now officially blamed hydraulic fracturing, or the pressurized injection of steam into the ground for fracturing nearby rock.”

    • Heinrich Leopold says:


      As the witch hunt on the rich still goes on feverishly, people forget that an economical successful society needs trailblazers like McClendon. A society must be open to extreme characters for good and bad as these people stir up the pond and keep the wheels running. The current process in society of reverting to the mean, when only incompetent bureaucrats can earn big money combined with a top down centralized decision making process will make society much poorer over time.

      Society must allow concepts and new ideas through a bottom up process managed by exceptional individuals like McClendon. The European Union -which becomes more and more a top down society similar to the Sowjet Union – and especially France are already good examples how fast a society can vanish through a centralized approach holding down individual activity.

      This has been even recognized by China when Deng Xiao Ping famously said: ‘Unfortunately we have to allow some people to become millionaires.’ Should centrists get its grip to power, millionaires will be poorer and the poor will not be richer. It is not that Cuba becomes the new USA, it will turn the US into the new Cuba.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        Society must allow concepts and new ideas through a bottom up process managed by exceptional individuals like McClendon.

        Dunno, my idea of exceptional individuals are people like Da Vinci, Newton, Pasteur, Einstein, Feynman, Carl Sagan, E.O Wilson etc…

        Personally, I find McClendon to be an example of a rather sad and pathetic individual. If he had had any new ideas he might still be alive. Instead he was a prime example of someone who was stuck in the past clinging to a failed system.

  41. ezrydermike says:

    current piece wrt E.O. Wilson

    Saving Half the Planet for Nature Isn’t As Crazy As It Seems

    “It’s a practical possibility,” says biologist E.O. Wilson, and it could save 80 to 90 percent of all species on Earth.

    • wimbi says:

      I have sent a copy of Half-Earth to all my friends with request to read and pass on to their friends.

      Very important, and hopeful. Wow, what a guy! He is a near exact contemporary of mine, and grew up in an Alabama swamp right next to the Louisiana swamp I grew up in.

      He was looking at ants. I was looking at gar fish teeth.

      • ezrydermike says:


      • Fred Magyar says:

        E.O. Wilson is my favorite biologist of all time. He understands systems!

        Unfortunately the very first comment to that article is from one very special Joy Berry…

        joy berry 6 hours ago
        If we preserve huge amounts of land like Wilson wants, economies will suffer. Already, the coal industry, which employs thousands of people, has been destroyed because of EPA regulations. If half of the the world’s resources were protected, industries would not be to continue. This means we would not have some of the basic necessities we take for granted and and millions of people would not have jobs.

        Joy’s other comments are even worse. I guess my question is, how do we get the Joy Berry’s of the world to change the way they view the world. Because if that is not done somehow then I think we don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of surviving.

        I’ll bet that the majority of Trump supporters think like this, and to be clear my point here is not to single out Trump supporters, we can do that some other time in a separate discussion but I’m just saying that because it is something that we can quantify. In other words there are an awful lot of people who think like Joy…

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          Hi Fred,

          For sure we are on the same page, paragraph and line this time!

          EO Wilson is a giant among giants, as biologists go, measured on the basis of his professional accomplishments.

          Beyond that, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he is the GREATEST writer in the field of biology, EVER, hands down.

          I have read some of his books five or six times, and every time, I gain new insights, while the pleasure of reading him never dims.

    • Javier says:

      I agree that it is a very good idea. We should continue expanding protected areas as much as possible. Even if we don’t reach the half planet mark, the more we protect the better we will be.

      Most people think that it is only worth protecting what it is still in pristine condition. This is not true. Even quite degraded areas will be reclaimed by nature in a very surprisingly short time if we allow it to happen.

      Wild species really need more room everywhere.

  42. ezrydermike says:

    Shale Euphoria: The Boom and Bust of Sub Prime Oil and Natural Gas


    The aim of this article is to show that the shale industry, whether extracting oil or gas, has never been financially sustainable. All around the world it has consistently disappointed profit expectations. Even though it has produced considerable quantities of oil and gas, and enough to influence oil and gas prices, the industry has mostly been unprofitable and has only been able to continue by running up more and more debt. How could this be? It seems paradoxical and defies ordinary economic logic. The answer is to be found in the way that the shale gas sector has been funded. It is part of a bubble economy inflated by monetary policy that has kept down interest rates. This has made investors “hunt for yield”. These investors believed that they had found a paying investment in shale companies – but they were really proving that they were susceptible to wishful thinking, vulnerable to hype and highly unethical practices that enabled Wall Street and other bankers to do very nicely. Those who invested in fracking are going to lose a lot of money.


    • Jonathan Madden says:

      Good article, Mike. Pretty aggressive towards the shale industry and their backers. I haven’t read anything quite as comprehensive in a post of this nature recently. Thanks for the link.

  43. ezrydermike says:

    Energy policy and uninformed opinion
    Kurt Cobb

    “America’s tradition of anti-intellectualism puts a low premium on careful thinking, allowing the substitution of slogans for analysis. The current presidential campaign should be evidence enough of how true this is.

    But there is another reason for resistance to careful thinking; it can be difficult and distressing, especially if it leads to conclusions that are uncomfortable or contrary to our current beliefs. Which brings us back to John Kenneth Galbraith who once said: “The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.”

    Conventional thinking is all we are likely to get out of polls and explains why serious energy policy thinkers continue to run up against opposition to what for a long time has been sensible energy policy, namely, dramatically reducing energy use through efficiency and conservation measures and rapidly switching to renewable sources such as wind and solar–sources that do not create the triple threat of depletion, pollution and climate change posed by fossil fuels.”


  44. AlexS says:

    Good article in DrillingInfo on US oil price differentials and LTO economics:

    The Bigger Picture of Local Oil Price Points

    March 24, 2016 by Mark Nibbelink

  45. ezrydermike says:

    New Map Shows Rise in Human-Caused Earthquake Risk

    The USGS map is the first to include quake risks related to human activity, largely tied to the fracking boom in the central states.


    • Stuart A. Copeland says:

      The earth is magnetic pole shifting, that much is undisputable fact and exactly what the int’l scientists outside of US Gov’t institutes like USGS will tell you is really causing the quakes.

      To explain further with more details, we see many consequences related to the pole shift, such as how the magnetic field (protector of all earth’s creatures) generated from deep within the earth’s core is buckling in on itself. Leading from this are actions, such as the sun firing off CME’s the size astronomers never before seen. These CME’s cause events, such as earthquakes of unprecedented magnitude (what this article is actually talking about), volcanism such that the world has never before seen, hurricanes and tornados at maximum cat. 10 levels becoming a common thing. For real there is something incredibly large & complex disturbing the natural state of balance of our earth’s magnetic field, and clearly the world’s leaders know it but dont want to worry the masses of people so they try to take the blame to other places like the “fracking boom” such as what’s mentioned in this article. Want more evidence? see Trey Smith’s, “Noah it begins”, the following image proves what I have discussed ~ http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/polesfig1.jpg

      • Fred Magyar says:

        Want more evidence?

        Yeah I really do!


      • GoneFishing says:

        Stuart, do you live in an underground bunker?

        • Stuart A. Copeland says:

          NO sir, but funny enough I was thinking some months ago of digging out a good little bunker that would end up slightly bigger than the communications dish in my back yard. Then I was going to plaster the walls with cement, noise & EMF dampening materials. The end idea would of been to get to some thing able to handle the destructive natural forces, such as the earthquakes. volcanism, & max. strength hurricanes & tornadoes I already talked about. I realized I also would need to build to such as level as would break the terrestrial & solar winds from all directions. I know I read some place about how guys back in the day managed to do all this with pretty good results. Have you any experience in this sort of activity? Has anyone here tried this?

          • Caelan MacIntyre says:

            What do you think about the Dunning-Kruger effect mentioned under your comment, and do you think it might apply to you?

      • Synapsid says:

        Dunning-Kruger alert

        • Caelan MacIntyre says:

          “The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately. Their research also suggests corollaries: highly skilled individuals may underestimate their relative competence and may erroneously assume that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.” ~ Wikipedia

          So what happens when you combine Gish Gallop with Dunning-Kruger in one individual?

      • Jef says:

        So the earth is making the sun react?


    • Rick's says:

      Hmmm…earthquakes in divers (diverse) places, climate not behaving as normal. Didn’t I read somewhere that these would be some of the first signs of the end times? Once again, things that make you go hmmm…

  46. Enno Peters says:


    Moving our discussion here.
    One source of our difference in opinion on what’s going to happen in the Eagle Ford in 2016, is what each of us believed happened in 2015.

    You write:
    ” The average monthly completion rate in 2015 for the Eagle Ford play was about 180 new wells per month.”
    “A conservative estimate for each of these plays is half the 2015 average completion rate. I think it less likely that the Eagle Ford will get that low because January’s completion rate was about 150 wells ”

    What is your source for 2015 & January completions? I have much lower numbers, and expect to get something like 140 completions/month for 2015 for the EF.

    I only count crude oil & oil wells (in oil leases), are you including wells in gas leases & condensate?

    I belief you further use the RRC statistic “OnSchedule” to determine well completions, right? Have you found a definition of this metric?

    “Perhaps EOG will represent the “average” company’s behavior and perhaps not. ”

    I have not said anything close to this. EOG itself is already a big sample of the whole EF population (>20%). Its finances, management, technology, and leases are also better than average. That makes me quite strongly belief that the average other operator in the EF is not going to complete more than 60% wells than EOG plans to do this year. Furthermore, in my calculation almost all EF wells being completed now are uneconomical. I don’t mind to now just wait and see what is actually going to happen, just wanted to motivate my projection.

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Enno,

      The economics are not all that different in the Bakken and Eagle Ford, my estimate on completions is based on my estimate of oil production.

      As an example using data from your blog for Jan 2016 your data shows 934.4 kb of oil produced in the Eagle Ford and this is 38.1% of statewide TX production in the RRC database (2453.7 kb/d.) Dean’s revised estimate is about 2934 kb/d of crude (not including condensate), if we assume 38.1% of this oil is from the Eagle Ford then there would be 1117 kb/d of crude output from the Eagle Ford.
      For Aug to Dec 2015 I get the following in kb/d.

      Using well profiles developed from your data, I estimate completed wells from a model to match the output data. I get 178 wells per month for the 2015 average.

      You have 10,200 producing wells in your database, there may be about 600 to 800 wells that are part of the “incomplete data”, As of Feb 1 the RRC had about 10,400 oil wells on schedule, but as you pointed out this number may be too low, 6 months from now the data may show 11,000 wells for Jan 2016.

      Note that I agree 140 wells per month is too high, but I think 60 is too low, maybe 100 is about right, possibly 90, but that would be a minimum in my view. I have consistently underestimated the number of wells that will be added, I am trying to not continue to make the same mistake. If prices remain under $40/b for all of 2016, maybe 60 will be correct. I just don’t believe that will happen.
      Oil will be at $60/b or more by the end of the year.

      • shallow sand says:


        You may want to pick out the top producing companies in the EFS and look at their reported quarterly net 2015 EFS production, as well as their forecasts for production and well completions in the EFS in 2016.

        Anecdotally, I am hearing that activity thus far in 2016 appears to be significantly less in the EFS than in most of 2015. The leg down since 1/1/16 seems to have really mattered there, along with the rolling off of hedges, poor natural gas prices and companies tending to have annual plans, which were slashed commencing with the 7/15 leg down.

        Agree difficult to compare company reports to state data and shale profile.com, due to royalties and non-operated interests. But it might be of help.

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi Shallow sand,

          The rig count has dropped by a lot so perhaps everything will drop by a lot. We just don’t have very good data for Texas (for the past 12 to 18 months) as it is incomplete. The reported data is excellent, the problem is that it is not all there.

          Too much work to dig up 10Ks etc.

          The data on the number of completions is not very good, but my estimate is that about 145 to 150 wells were completed in Jan 2016 in the eagle Ford, about double the Bakken rate, I expect the completion rate to continue to drop to perhaps 50 completions per month, but the average rate for the year will be between 90 and 120 in my opinion, depending on what happens to the oil price.
          Eventually the oil price will rise, we probably need $80/b or more for the average Eagle Ford oil well to be profitable.

          Note at 60 months cumulative output is 172 kb and average daily output is 24.5 b/d (in month 60) for the average 2013-2015 Eagle Ford well and at 36 months cumulative output is 148.2 kb, at 12o months cumulative output is 201 kb, and daily average output at 120 months is 10.6 b/d.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Enno,

        I have sent you an email with some of my findings. Not sure what you want shared here so waiting on your response.

        Thanks for sharing your data with me, very interesting.

  47. GoneFishing says:

    Electric Vehicle substitution for oil. Is it possible?

    Current PV outputs about 1 GWh per annum per acre. Installations cost about $500,000 per acre.
    Current Electric cars use about 0.3 kwh per mile and we can expect future ones to get as low as 0.2 kwh per mile. The average US miles per day is 34, so that is 10 kwh per day and 3650 kwh per annum. So one acre of PV can support 274 electric cars initially and 200 by the time it reaches it’s 50% output point in 70 years.

    Excluding wind power and other sources of electricity, it would take about 1 million acres of PV to supply all the passenger vehicles with electricity. That is 0.04% of our land area, which is only a small portion of our developed area.

  48. ezrydermike says:

    Fernando dismissed this before, but I think Exxon might be in for some trouble here…

    In a move many are hailing as a “turning point” in the climate fight, 20 state Attorneys General on Tuesday launched an unprecedented, multi-state effort to investigate and prosecute the “high-funded and morally vacant forces” that have stymied attempts to combat global warming—starting with holding ExxonMobil and other industry giants accountable for fraud and suppression of key climate science.

    The coalition of Attorneys General from 16 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands was convened by Schneiderman, who in November announced a state investigation into Exxon after reporting revealed that the oil giant had for decades known and suppressed evidence about the dangers that fossil fuels posed to the environment, and then purposely disseminated false information in order to boost its profits.

    The coalition includes Attorneys General from California, Connecticut, District Of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington state, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.


  49. John S says:

    Below are 2 links to Dr. Ted Patzek, Professor of Petroleum and Chemical Engineering in Kaist, Saudi Arabia.
    Formerly he was Professor and Chairman of the Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering Department at the University of Texas At Austin.

    I wish that I could say that I knew him personally. He is a very thoughtful man and I wish that he would post more on his blog : LifeItself. I have only scanned these posts but I know I will read and reread Dr. Patzek several more times.

    Part 1: http://patzek-lifeitself.blogspot.com/2016/03/is-us-shale-oil-gas-production-peaking.html

    Part 2: http://patzek-lifeitself.blogspot.com/

  50. Doug Leighton says:

    ATTENTION ASTRONOMY BUFFS. This is cool, well hot actually. Using an orbiting radio telescope (Russian RadioAstron satellite) in conjunction with four ground-based radio telescopes astronomers have achieved the highest resolution of any astronomical observation ever made. What did they see: Quasar 3C 273 in exquisite detail. Among several other findings, this earth-space system revealed a temperature hotter then 10 trillion degrees. “… now we have to figure out how that environment can reach such temperatures.”

    What the hell, this IS an Energy Blog isn’t it?

    Reference: National Radio Astronomy Observatory. “Earth-space telescope produces hot surprise: Super high resolution reveals new details of quasar and Milky Way.” ScienceDaily, 29 Mar. 2016.


    • GoneFishing says:

      How does it hold itself together? Wouldn’t most of the matter escape the gravitational field at those speeds (temperatures)? Or is this the temperature of the escaping jet?

      • Doug Leighton says:

        The high temperatures were from the quasar’s core, a result not explained with the current understanding of how relativistic jets of quasars radiate. It’s probably worth noting that extreme brightness (temperatures) had already been identified in several additional objects including recent observations of BL Lacertae. Perhaps all that can be said at the moment is these measurements seem to be pointing to new underlying physics. NB my pet thing is neutron stars (i.e., magnetars and pulsars), definitely not quasar radiation physics so I’m simply paraphrasing what I read.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      What the hell, this IS an Energy Blog isn’t it?

      Well, sorta kinda mostly 🙂

    • Jef says:

      On topic as long as we can tap that baby;-}

  51. ezrydermike says:

    uh oh…

    SunEdison Inc., a leading solar-power company saddled with nearly $10 billion of long-term debt, is at risk of filing for bankruptcy protection, one of SunEdison’s affiliates said Tuesday.

    SunEdison also reportedly is being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission over whether the company might have overstated to investors how much cash it had on hand in November.

    In response to both developments, SunEdison’s already battered stock plunged further to less than $1 a share. The stock was down 69 cents, or 55%, to 57 cents a share in afternoon trading in New York.

    Last July, SunEdison was trading above $31 a share. At that point SunEdison had a market value of $10 billion; it’s now about $400 million.


    • Toolpush says:

      Funny, when I see bankruptcy stories on here, I always expect it to be another shale company, but the solar and renewable industry seems to be running, neck to neck, when it comes to going out the back door with the shale players!

      Strangely enough, the shale players have been very resilient. It will be interesting how long before we see a rush to the back door!

      • Fred Magyar says:

        Funny, when I see bankruptcy stories on here, I always expect it to be another shale company, but the solar and renewable industry seems to be running, neck to neck, when it comes to going out the back door with the shale players!


        The 11 Largest Bankruptcies In American History
        The range of industries represented, however, is narrow. Finance, automaking, and energy nearly cover it.

        Apparently energy is a tough business to be in regardless of the source…
        BTW, for the record, given that most solar and renewable businesses are for all practical purposes startups it is really not surprising that it is even more difficult for them to stay afloat.

        I could look it up but I believe something like 90% of all startups fail. As an entrepreneur, I’ve been there and done that myself… 🙂

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          Fred is right, the history of new industries indicates that the large majority of companies always goes broke. After a while a few bigger ones dominate the industry, with a bunch of smaller ones hanging in there providing their goods and or services to particular customers who what the big boys can’t or won’t provide.

          At one time about five hundred companies were building automobiles in the USA. Eventually we got down to three, plus a very few very small manufacturers producing a handful of cars most people never heard of. I guess we are back up to maybe eight or ten now that foreign makers have USA manufacturing operations. There are probably now a couple of dozen one horse out fits building cars as well.

          The solar industry is not going away. The anti renewables press is full of bullshit about it closing up, the wind industry too, but free fuel is an attraction too good to be passed up in a world where fossil fuels are already in short enough supply that we necessarily deploy vast armies and navies to protect our access to them.

          This piece in Forbes is about as nasty a hatchet job as you could ever want to read about renewables, with nary a word in it about depletion, or the inability of poor people or anybody else for that matter to for imported fossil fuels,etc.


          • Toolpush says:


            I see you have all come to expected defense of the “New startup” companies in the solar trade.
            I wouldn’t call Sunedison a startup. It think you will find most of the shale companies are much younger. Not sure if Thomas Edison is related, or just a play on his names.
            Plus, if you read what I wrote, I am still expecting the shale players to be going broke in larger numbers.
            From Sunedison business plan in Oz, Zero down, we install and guarantee minimum electrical production. Sounds a very familiar business plan from the property bust days. So it could be really a financial play bust rather than a technology bust. The good news is that there has not been any mention of large globs of government money as of yet. I hope it stays that way.

            SunEdison, Inc. is a global renewable energy company headquartered in the U.S. In addition to developing, building, owning, and operating solar power plants and wind energy plants, it also manufactures … Wikipedia
            Stock price: SUNE (NYSE) USD0.56 -0.70 (-55.79%)
            30 Mar., 7:30 am GMT-4 – Disclaimer
            CEO: Ahmad Chatila
            Headquarters: Maryland Heights, Missouri, United States
            Revenue: 2.484 billion USD (2014)
            Founded: August 6, 1959
            Operating income: 536 million USD (2014)

            • Fred Magyar says:

              I see you have all come to expected defense of the “New startup” companies in the solar trade.

              Well given that the oil business is a mature industry and has been around since the mid 1800’s I think we can safely call all solar businesses the new kids on the block. So if and when solar has been around for 150 or so years then I might agree with you.

              My point was simply that it is not in the least bit surprising, to me anyway, that we might see a few bankruptcies in the solar trade.

              For the record, I expect nothing, I’m just a spectator watching events unfold and don’t have any real skin in the game one way or another. But given the state of the planet I still think we should be heavily subsidizing a transition to a world with as little fossil fuel use as possible!

              As far as bankruptcies in the shale business, let’s just say it wouldn’t exactly come as a big shock…

            • Dennis Coyne says:

              Hi Toolpush,

              Earlier you quoted 30 cents per kWhr in Oz, I assume that is a residential rate during peak hours. Are there offpeak rates there and wouldn’t most cars be charges during those times? In many OECD nations industry and commercial electricity rates are lower and any charging at work would cost much less than the residential rate.

              What is the cost of a residential PV system in Oz on a kWhr basis? The solar resource is very good there, I would think the PV system would be pretty competitive with a residential rate of 30 cents per kW-hr.

    • Jef says:

      Where have we seen this type of behavior before?

      “That’s what has attracted a slew of lithium entrepreneurs hoping that they’ve bought the winning claims that will strike it rich in “white gold” that’s floating in salty water beneath the surface.”

  52. Oldfarmermac says:


    From this article:

    The fiercest battleground has been in Michigan, where Gov. Rick Snyder signed legislation two years ago that banned the direct sales that Tesla uses. Last month, Tesla applied for a dealership license in the state, but the state has said it’s reviewing the application.

    Dealers there have argued that their businesses and livelihood would be at risk when competing with a direct sales model. Bold mine.

    Last May, the Federal Trade Commission urged Michigan lawmakers to reconsider its ban on Tesla and other car manufacturers from direct sales, writing, “Past studies by both academic researchers and FTC staff have concluded that state-imposed restrictions on automobile manufacturers’ ability to negotiate with their dealers increased the prices paid by consumers without leading to notable improvements in service quality.”

    Tesla has argued that state laws that ban direct sales create extra hurdles for customers. Customers in states like Michigan can purchase a Tesla car online and technically take delivery in California before having it shipped to Michigan.

    That bold line up above says it all. The dealers are blowing hot air when they say they provide a valuable service compared to Tesla selling direct. They know they can’t, and are arguing in court that their services result in higher prices to car buyers.

    But they are safe enough in assuming that the typical car buyer is dumb enough to believe their sales pitches.

  53. Oldfarmermac says:


    March will likely set a new all time average high temperature in my neck of the woods.

    Except when it has been raining, or windy I have been working outside without a jacket or sweater, just a flannel shirt almost every day. I am not THAT far south, lol.

    Some nice days are to be expected here in March, but never ALL of them.

  54. likbez says:

    Looks like Libya’ civil war is far from over. From Richard Galustian (https://twitter.com/bd_richard )

    The problem for the international community is while destroying ISIS is their stated priority, both Libya’s rival camps see each other as the greater threat. ISIS is a threat, but neither camp believes it is an existential threat, so the priority for both camps is fighting each other.

  55. chilyb says:

    apologize if this was already posted above:


    With a combination of theory and clever, meticulous gel-making, scientists from the Department of Energy’s SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and the University of Toronto have developed a new type of catalyst that’s three times better than the previous record-holder at splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen — the vital first step in making fuels from renewable solar and wind power.

    The research, published today in the journal Science, outlines a potential way to make a future generation of water-splitting catalysts from three abundant metals — iron, cobalt and tungsten — rather than the rare, costly metals that many of today’s catalysts rely on.

  56. Pingback: jack powered small hydraulic oil press for olive oil – Palm Oil Mill Xyz

  57. Υoᥙ do not hage tо follow the preѕent swim suit trends cߋme
    acrosѕ thee swimwear garments tɦat mаke you feel comfortable.
    Doing these tɦings will not onlу help you feel less lonely bսt аlso
    feel leѕs alone. Theʏ have wheels and attached pulleys ԝhich сan bе used for towing purposes tߋ ԁifferent locations.

Comments are closed.