US Rig Count by Location

542 thoughts to “US Rig Count by Location”

1. Ron, that’s useful to see that the fall in rigs seems to be everywhere. One might have thought the more expensive plays to be hit hardest. Here’s my latest offering. Doesn’t show an awful lot. Oil price fell, rig count fell and oil production moving sideways.

   Oil Production Vital Statistics: March 2015

   1. Euan, I see you are still showing all that OPEC spare capacity. I know you are just showing the IEA’s guesstimate. But what is your personal opinion? Do you really believe anyone but Saudi Arabia has any spare capacity. And just how much do you thing Saudi has?

      My opinion is that OPEC had spare capacity from late 2008 until mid 2011. Since then OPEC has had zero barrels of spare capacity and that includes Saudi Arabia.

      1. Ron, I agree that all bar Saudi has spare capacity, though the status of Iran and Libya are debatable. I’d further estimate that Saudi spare capacity is over-stated by about 1 Mbpd. But the IEA are quite methodological about how this is recorded. If a country goes down 100,000 bpd, then that gets added to spare capacity and vice versa. But there is an issue with a country like Algeria now where production seems to be in decline.

         I like the chart for the cycles it shows – there’s a natural 3 year supply demand cycle balance. And if we saw spare capacity rising it would be a sign that OPEC were abandoning their strategy.

      2. Euan,

         Art Berman actually made a comment in his Feb 6th blog post at his new site, that the plays with the worst economics had the highest declines in rig counts. According to Berman:

         “Some of this makes perfect sense, like Barnett, Granite Wash and Mississippi Lime losing the most rigs because these are the worst plays from an economic perspective.”

         http://www.artberman.com/u-s-rig-count-6-february-2015/

         Art also included a new updated table showing mostly the same. Art wrote another article where he believes the U.S. could see a 600,000 barrel a day decline by June-July if the prices remain this low.

         http://www.artberman.com/tight-oil-production-will-fall-600000-barrels-per-day-by-june/

         We’ll see. However, I would imagine production will most certainly decline by the middle of the year. How much, will be interesting indeed.

         steve

         

         1. Thanks Steve, I would be astonished if it was as much as 600,000 bpd by the summer.

            Note I got my words completely mixed in my earlier comment. Only Saudi has spare capacity.

            1. Hi Euan,

               I agree that if oil prices stay where they are (around $50/b) 600 kb/d sounds like too much, if there is a US decline in output during 2015 it will be 300 kb/d or less imo, from the most recent reported US levels of C+C output of 9226 kb/d. Also note that for all of 2014 the average US C+C output was 8650 kb/d, it is very doubtful that 2015 output will fall below 9000 kb/d (12 month average output).

      3. Mr. Patterson,

         Regarding the dropping rig count and capex cut on existing and new projects, OPEC announced recently: “OPEC Sees Oil Prices Exploding to $200 a Barrel”. Do you have an educated guess on the timeframe, let’s say when oilprices will go above $ 100 again ?
         With regards,
         Han

2. Ron, it appears the oil rig count will be at the most 800 by May 1st. I would guess the international rig count is also dropping, but not nearly as fast (rig contracts are longer term and there are more state owned oil company projects). Does this mean the excess supply should be gone by year end?

3. Fernando, if you are talking about the excess supply of oil we are now experiencing, then I don’t know because that is due to imports more than local production. The very high amount of imports and build up of oil supply right now is due to importers taking advantage of low prices. It is likely they believe that prices will rise again very soon.

   But I suppose you are talking about “wells waiting to be fracked”. We know what they are in North Dakota but no one else publishes those stats. I expect North Dakota will still have wells waiting on fracking crews by the end of the year but not nearly as many as they do now. I have no idea how many wells are awaiting fracking crews in Eagle Ford or elsewhere but I suspect not nearly as many. And yes, I expect all that inventory to be gone by the end of the year.

   1. Hi Ron,

      I interpret Fernando’s comment as the excess world supply of oil which has driven oil prices lower.
      Fernando can correct this if I misunderstood.

4. Just to note, the EIA shows a total rig count hitting 4,521 12/1981. They did not split oil/gas rigs in that era.

   1. Thanks, I have made that notation in the text.

5. Gas rig is down for four years in the US, but not production.
   That may be why some think oil will be the same.

   1. Guillaume,

      Gas production in up, with a decreasing rig count. That is due to Marcellus and Utica production, and is a major inflection point for US gas production. Take away capacity is holding them back, and until that gets in place, we will not have a handle of their potential.
      On the other hand, when shale oil ran out of pipeline capacity, they turned to the railways. which allowed them to expand at their desired rate. So to me there is nothing up their sleeve. The lower rig count will have a direct effect on oil production, given a delay for completion, and an allowance for some high siding on drilling the core acreage.
      The question for me, is not will shale oil production drop, but will the finance markets allow them to recover once the price turns around?

      1. Toolpush: your point is on the money.

         Also I wonder if there will be some M & A activity this year.

         Shale companies have their backs against the wall if prices do not rebound this year. Maybe majors with a long term view of much higher prices will pick a few off?

         1. ND rig count 116 with four more listed as being stacked.

   2. And the Haynesville Gas Play chart:

      

   3. Of course, many operators are drilling in the twilight zone, between oil and gas, in liquids rich high GOR reservoirs, but in any case, if companies are asserting that rising production correlates to declining rig counts, wouldn’t the maximum increase in production correlate to a zero rig count?

      1. Only if they’ve studied calculus.

      2. Jeffrey,

         This was something that confused me for a while too (collapsing gas rig count vs still high gas production). Am I right in assuming that a fair chunk of the current gas output comes from wells which are primarily designated as oil wells.

         1. Total domestic US supply of gas comes from: (1) dry gas reservoirs; (2) liquids rich gas reservoirs and (3) associated gas (gas associated with oil reservoirs). In recent years, operators have presumably been focusing on (2) & (3).

            Also, note the considerable lag between the start of the decline in the Haynesville rig count and the subsequent decline in production, which was presumably a function of: (1) A backlog of drilled and cased, but not yet completed wells; (2) Operators initially abandoning the least productive areas and (3) Possible delays in getting pipeline connections and/or pipeline constraints.

6. In the Bakken, old rigs are being stacked and probably won’t return to drill any more wells. My guess is that 40 plus of the Undetermined will stop drilling. A 75 count of working rigs, something like that.

   One time out in Montana a train derailed out in the middle of nowhere. A derailed carload of corn tipped over and spilled corn into a ditch filled with water. After some time, the corn and water began to stew a brew, a few sun rays and presto, alcohol. Bears discovered the corn liquor and began returning to their favorite watering hole time after time, imbibing each time and the desired result, inebriation, brought them back for more.

   You do not need an ethanol plant, you just need a ditch full of water and corn.

7. OK I have a question for you guys. Why is President Obama against the Keystone XL pipeline project? Its been said this pipeline is against the “national interest” and that there are environmental concerns but not exactly what these concerns are (from anything I’ve seen anyway). I understand opposition based on global warming worries but is that the reason? The US is laced with pipelines and is a major coal producer so why pick on this particular project? Personally I’m neutral to slightly against tar sands development so I’m not looking for a deluge of ranting and raving: Pro or Con. Just a simple explanation will do. My wife and I were discussing this over breakfast and she is equally bewildered by the Obama Veto (And she’s totally against oil sands development based on warming concerns).

   1. Doug, I assume the reason Obama opposes the keystone pipeline is that he is looking at appeasing the environmentalists and assumes most democrats agree with him. I think this is a mistake. Though I am a liberal democrat I do not oppose the Keystone Pipeline. Of course it is not 100% safe but it is far safer than transporting oil by rail.

      Most people don’t realize that the choice is very seldom, if ever, between good and evil. The choice is almost always between the greater and lesser evil. The Keystone Pipeline is the lesser evil.

      Some people oppose the Keystone Pipeline because they think we “should get off oil and other fossil fuels and stopping the Keystone Pipeline is a step in that direction. This is a very silly pipe dream. We will get off oil when the price is so high no one can afford it, or whenever the economy completely collapses, whichever comes first.

      1. The price is already so high humanity can’t afford it. We will get off ff’s when we are forced, by some catastrophe, to admit it, and we had better be spending our time getting ready for that.

         So, quit the pipe dreams, get going on the real problem.

         1. I’ve been carefully studying the solar business and the battery business.

            We’ll be completely off of oil sometime in the 2030s, guaranteed.

            Here are the takeaways to remember:
            — solar panel installations are growing exponentially, at a factor of 1.4 (geometric average last decade) or 1.3 (geometric average since 1975 or so)
            — solar panel factories are being built at the same exponential rate
            — there are no resource supply constraints
            — for every doubling of panel production (which happens in 3 years) the price per MW goes down by 30%
            — exponential growth will continue until it satisfies *world demand*, which is very very high
            — solar is already beating new-build thermal plants on competitive bids for utility-scale power projects
            — the only bottleneck is battery storage, which is expected to get about 30% cheaper in the next 10 years

            And regarding the broader energy markets:
            — ExxonMobil has seen no increase in reserves from the massive amount of money it spend on exploration since 2008
            — Deutsche Bank, Bank of Abu Dhabi, and Morgan Stanley have all advised not investing in fossil fuels because they are not competitive with solar power
            — for heating and industrial uses, all oil users are switching to either electricity or natural gas, because oil is simply not price-competitive (even at $50/bbl)
            — transportation is the only remaining major user of oil
            — it is already cheaper over the vehicle lifetime to use battery-electric technology than oil for the following use cases:
            —- sedan driving 100K miles/year or more (8-10 year payback); this is with very high profit margins of 25% on the electric sedans, which will probably drop
            —- city bus (6 year payback)
            —- garbage truck (3 year payback)

            The Deutsche Bank report on the future of oil is particularly carefully done, and predicts a gyration between high prices (causing people to switch away from oil to alternatives permanently) and low prices (causing oil exploration to be reduced permanently). So far the DB report has been absoutely on the mark correct, through two cycles.

            1. Why don’t you describe in detail the way oil production will drop to zero by your predicted date, and the cost of the solar and battery infrastructure needed to accomplish it? I fear your comment will remain as another solar power propaganda piece unless you can flesh it out.

            2. The only bottleneck is battery storage? Uh, no. Let’s to Japan, and see how they’re doing.

               http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/business/international/japans-solar-power-growth-falters-as-utilities-balk.html?_r=0

               Let’s see… politics, check, lack of infrastructure investment, check, real estate issues, check, higher energy prices being blamed for adjusting consumer consumption patterns, check, laws that force utilities to accept power from renewables at far higher prices than market rates, check, somehow unhappy utilities, check. Spades of complications, and ones that are curiously absent from your analysis.

            3. ….”I’ve been carefully studying the solar business and the battery business.
               We’ll be completely off of oil sometime in the 2030s, guaranteed.”…

               Hi Nathanael,

               …I can hear (…almost…) that lovely, ravishing early ’70 tune from Aerosmith engorging your brain:
               “….Dream on, Dream on,….Dream on until your Dreams come true….”
               ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
               …don’t wake up…
               2030 shall be here soon enough!

               Be well,

               Petro

               1. Hi Paulo,

                  It occurs to me that while we can’t get away from oil in fifteen or twenty years that oil will be getting away from us.

                  My own wild ass guess is that oil will cost at least twice as much in constant money in fifteen years as it did last year – about two hundred bucks minimum.

                  The price of it may be capped by coal to liquids production and economic hard times but it in my opinion we will adapt to higher prices well enough that we can pay two hundred bucks or even more.

                  How about it guys?

                  Are any of you willing to share your thoughts on the real price of oil fifteen or twenty years down the road?

                  By real I mean adjusted to 2015 dollars.

               2. Hi Mac,

                  The price sounds about right. Not sure there will be enough coal for CTL

               3. Thanks RON great blog
                  Live long and prosper Ofm..love your posts .
                  $40 – $ 60…will be the norm
                  Tight Credit and High U.S. Dollar….will have to change before prices move .

                  Bill

               4. Hi Mac…..
                  I’m Peter…mmm, I mean Petro – not Paul.

                  By 2030 or so, there will be no “bucks” and market for oil (or anything but food, probably)…

                  The “buck” today buys you the same as 3-4 cents in early 20th century.
                  That implies 100% inflation in roughly 100 years…and those were the years of the american century and unlimited resources…if the “buck” as you put it will exist in 2030-2050(and that is a BIG if!) it shall be very different from the “buck” you handle today.

                  I really hope I am wrong and you are right Mac, but let’s not be definite about things we do not understand, shall we.
                  Just a thought, just a thought…no offense intended!

                  Be well,

                  Petro

               5. Hi Petro,

                  He said in 2015 $. The inflation rate long term has been 2 to 3%, let’s call it 3%. If that is roughly the average rate of inflation over the next 30 years then $1 dollars in 2015$ will be worth $2.42 in 2045$.

                  So if oil is $200/b in 2015$ in 2045, that would be $484 in nominal $. Your $50/b in 2015 $ would be $121/b in 2045$.

                  Old Farmer Mac’s guess of $200/b in 2015$ will be too high if the transition to renewables is quick and easy as NickG and John B seem to think, but if such a transition happens at all it will not be easy and it will not happen in 30 years (more like 60 years imo).

               6. If the price of oil goes above $150 the transition away from oil will be very, very fast indeed.

                  Heck. $100 oil is enough to get a pretty decent pace going, and that is likely to accelerate given a (slowly) rising awareness of Climate Change.

            4. Driving 100K miles/year seems a little above average. 😉

      2. The original reasons for opposing the Keystone XL were due to the sensitive natural areas and preserved environmental areas it would transgress across, thus putting those areas at risk. Also the pipeline is destined to cross much of the Ogallala Aquifer, putting the bread basket at risk of pollution.
         The band wagon started to fill up with those who were against the tar sands and thought the loss of the Keystone XL would at least temporarily slow development of tar sands products.
         As far as I am concerned, the original reasons were enough to reroute the XL or build alternate pipelines in other areas. The added bonus of potentially slowing the development of tar sands was good but would only be temporary and in the long run ineffective at stopping carbon pollution.
         The US development of source rock oil has done a good job in slowing development of tar sands production, through helping to force a price drop in crude. So now the oil companies themselves can be considered unintentional environmental activists.

         1. The high plains aquifer is shown below. The idea that a pipeline on top of that geologic section, with water level usually ranging several hundred feet below the surface sure sounds hilarious.

            

      3. We also may start getting off it because of carbon restrictions.

   2. Doug, all good questions.

      On the environmental side they worry about global warming and pressure Obama to kill it. But, It’s not clear how killing it helps and doing something like moving it by train may actually be worse.

      However, there are issues with the particular route that has been proposed. It might be better to re-route it away from any environmentally sensitive areas. Obama has been holding it up until the various tribes, environmental, and other groups agree to the route. The veto was on a bill to force approval now, he may still approve the pipeline later.

      Also, There are issues about land rights, you have a Canadian company taking control of land using eminent domain which would normally concern people on the right politically – but since it’s oil all are quite.

      1. Transport by rail increases costs, so it puts more economic pressure on the Tar Guys.

         They are abandoning projects even now.

   3. Doug: My opinion is the opposition is purely political. ROCKMAN on the other site has pointed out numerous times that record amounts of Canadian crude are entering the US through other pipelines and there have been expansions to some of those pipelines, none of which have drawn the notice of MSM.

      Western Nebraska grain farmers are concerned about a major leak contaminating the Ogallala aquifer. This aquifer is vital to their irrigated corn production operations. I don’t know how valid that concern is. I also don’t know about the farmers’political clout with the President in relation to environmental activists who are generally opposed to fossil fuels.

      1. I assume Nebraska grain farmers would be against Obama no matter what he did or didn’t do.

         1. Even Nebraska grain farmers are willing to play ball if they think they can get into the game.

            Farmers in places with a good wind resource can net a handsome income for very little work by leasing to wind farms and keep right on farming most of the leased land. They have shown a willingness to shake hands with the environmental devil. They will even shake hands with the head devil himself if Obama comes around offering to lease their land at a handsome rate to build a wind farm.

            I hope most folks here understand that these remarks are somewhat cynical and sarcastic.

            I think the OBUMBLER is pretty good on the ideas front but mediocre indeed on the day to day management front.

            Better than that idiot the repuglithans ran against him in my opinion.

            As Churchhill said if the devil himself were to come out against the Nazis he would personally at least mention him favorably in Parliament.

            And believe it or not just about every farmer I ever met understands without having to give the matter any thought at all that fossil fuels come out of holes in the ground and don’t grow back like potatoes.

            Farmers who are hard core right wingers in my experience think the way they do because they –with substantial good cause— see the left wing and environmentalists as threats to them personally and their way of life.

            I just bought a piece of land a couple of years ago that I will never live to pay for with the full knowledge that clean water regulations are probably going to result in the defacto taking of the very best twenty percent of the entire tract.

            But I believe in clean water and I think the odds are pretty good I will get the loss back in the form of health care or something else. I can afford the loss. A lot of people can’t. Talk of draconian regulations involving fertilizers pesticides and land use rightfully scares the hell out of them.

            Such talk would scare the hell out of ME if I were to be a grain farmer in the midwest.

            Regulations on the books NOW that will come into effect in ten years will effectively outlaw small scale farming due to the inevitable effects of inflation in the same way inflation has nullified the protections built into income tax laws originally to protect the poorest people from having to file tax returns.

            Five thousand bucks used to be serious money to working poor people. Nowadays you make close to three times that at minimum wage full time.

            Regs on the books – which may or may not be enforced when the time comes- define the limits of what I can or could do in respect to water issues in terms of my gross dollar sales. Prices will probably double within the next ten years for apples and peaches etc wholesale. That would mean me being over the limit. But as it is I could barely survive with orchards of the size we operated until a couple of years ago. Getting smaller is not an option for small farmers.

            All the talk about local direct sales and farm markets is mostly bullshit because it applies mostly only to farmers who are one physically located in places where such markets can work and two,farmers who are able to diversify sufficiently to produce a lot of different crops in very small quantities. Some land is good for that sort of work. Most land and most places are not due to climate issues.

            A Nebraska housewife or house husband can grow a pretty decent garden but growing a dozen different crops in Nebraska all on the same farm is out of the question in commercial terms. The weather and the land are not well suited and the customers are not where the farms are in any case.

            If you want to move crops off a farm by the truck load it behooves you to have a truckload of one thing at a time. Loading a truck up with a few of these and a handful of those and a box or two of something else works to run a delivery route but it doesn’t work at the farm wholesale level.

            Direct to the public sales don’t work very well where I live because there are about fifty times as many farmers as there are local buyers for the stuff we produce . It has to be shipped or we have to quit farming. Incidentally I have mostly quit but am working towards a grass fed cow calf operation which works on my land and is relatively low labor.Orchards are out at the scale I can run them nowadays given my age and health. This land will be developed into a small working farm as close to ”sustainable” as I can make it and as a working doom stead farm.

            If I don’t need it as such somebody will someday.

            The places where direct sale works are usually places where owning enough land and paying the taxes on it make farming a pretty iffy proposition. It works if you are lucky enough to inherit such land. Generally speaking if you have to buy it does not work.

            This is not to say a few farm markets can’t be made to work just about anywhere. I have a relative who runs one that is very successful but his customers don’t realize that eighty percent of what he sells he buys on the wholesale market.He doesn’t go out of his way to enlighten them either.

            He and his wife and a couple of hired hands work their asses off growing and harvesting the last twenty percent or so. There are maybe a dozen such successful markets within thirty miles or so.. There are at least a hundred small farmers still working small farms in the same area.

            It is truly heartbreaking to haul a pickup truck load of the very finest and very freshest just picked an hour ago peaches to five or six of these markets one after another and be told by the owner he can’t even get rid of HIS OWN peaches- the ones HE grew himself. Been there. Done that. Been in the orchards the owners of the markets. They weren’t lying, they really were overstocked with their own production.

            Life on the farm is not so simple as those who tell us how to do it sustainably on a small scale think it is. Real farmers know better.

            Real engineers know better than to think switching to renewables is going to be a piece of cake.

            Those of us who lecture Fernando on how easy it is to make the switch to renewables don’t have his perspective or his deep knowledge of the difficulties involved.

            He knows some stuff like it or not. I listen to what he has to say even though I disagree with him frequently.

   4. Not altogether clear which came first, the chicken or the egg. One party or the other took a stand on it. Then the other party kneejerked the opposing stand. That’s the overall 90% answer for your question. The GOP favors it so Obama will oppose it.

      After that decision is made, finding justification is an assignment given to staff.

      As I recall, the original motivation was sourced in getting the export ban lifted, increasing the price thereby, and using a pipeline to get to export terminals on the Gulf coast. Then the kneejerks started.

   5. I think concern 1 is that pipelines leak, but probably the bigger problem is that environmentalists absolutely hate oil sands, which they view as particularly bad for the environment and climate change.

   6. “I am returning herewith without my approval S. 1, the “Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act.” Through this bill, the United States Congress attempts to circumvent longstanding and proven processes for determining whether or not building and operating a cross-border pipeline serves the national interest.

      The Presidential power to veto legislation is one I take seriously. But I also take seriously my responsibility to the American people. And because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest — including our security, safety, and environment — it has earned my veto.”

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/24/veto-message-senate-s-1-keystone-xl-pipeline-approval-act

   7. “And yet, the president can’t change the fact that environmentalists and Republicans have turned this into a life-or-death issue, so he might as well make the most of it. Since the program is so low-impact, there is no pressing reason for Obama to hand Republicans a symbolic victory when he can use the pipeline as a bargaining chip. This could take two forms: One is the president could sign a bill that approves the pipeline and anti-climate change measures, such as more funding for the Environmental Protection Agency. The second, and more likely, is that, during budget negotiations later this year, Democrats could trade approval of the pipeline for Republicans dropping other objectionable policies that they will try to use the budget to force into law.”

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/02/25/obama-was-right-to-veto-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-but-not-for-the-reason-you-think/

   8. Things are far from settled at the state level. All kinds of legal challenges going on in Nebraska and South Dakota. There are also many tribal challenges that haven’t been sorted out.

      Plus……”Obama’s main reason for vetoing the bill is that it came from Congress. In his memo to the Senate, the president made clear the approval process needs to go through the State Department. The president reserves the right to approve or reject the northern route of the Keystone XL.”

      http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29415-obama-s-veto-of-keystone-xl-bittersweet-for-texans-forced-to-allow-the-pipeline-on-their-land

      Also, don’t forget the EPA has a much different take on the State Dept. previous blessing…

      “Until ongoing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production ofoil sands are more successful and widespread, the Final SEIS makes clear that, compared to reference crudes, development of oil sands crude represents a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
      The Final SEIS also provided a more robust market analysis, and examined how market dynamics may influence the levels of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed Project. Based on that market analysis, the Final SETS concluded, in January of2014, that if the Project were not approved, oil sands crude would be likely to reach the market some other way, most likely by rail. The Final SEIS acknowledged that the alternative of shipment by rail is more expensive than shipment by pipeline, and would therefore increase the costs of getting oil sands crude to market. 5 However, the Final SEIS concluded that given global oil prices projected at that time this difference in shipment costs would not affect development of oil sands, which would remain profitable even with the higher transportation costs of shipment by rail. Therefore, the Final SEIS concluded that although development of oil sands would lead to significant additional releases of greenhouse gasses, a decision not to grant the requested permit would likely not change that outcome, i.e., those significant greenhouse gas emissions would likely happen regardless of the decision on the proposed Project. This conclusion was based in large part on projections of the global price of oil.”

      http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/20140032.pdf

      1. Easyrider,

         Obama has paid the most outrageous possible political price by opposing the Keystone. This was one of the KEY hot button issues that totally pissed off republicans and motivated them to get to the polls. It no doubt convinced a substantial number of middle of the road voters that the administration was / is pandering to the environmentalists.

         Anybody who is a political middle of the roader almost for sure heard that the state department found no real reasons to object to the pipeline.

         And the longer he holds it up the more likely it is in my opinion at least that the republicans will win the White House next election.

         The smart thing to have done would have been to use it as a bargaining chip to get some money for renewables and or setting aside some more park and wilderness lands or something of that nature. That would have been doable.

         I may be wrong but I am willing to bet two to one the pipeline is approved within the next thirty months.

         If it doesn’t get approved the Canadian federal government will find a way to build pipelines east and west to the Atlantic and Pacific. There are provisions in Canadian law that make this possible and the number of people who will share in the loot vastly VASTLY outnumber the people who would rather such east west pipelines not be built.

         1. Natives will stop it dead dead and deader going to the west coast. Specifically the Haida. Harper will be out next fall, and any other Govt will never take this on. Eastern route more likely.

            Haida will go to war on this one, literally, as well as other coastal tribes.

            1. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/17/3592947/sioux-keystone-act-of-war/

            2. Good for the Haida.

         2. Republicans were calling for Obama’s impeachment before he even took office. Why should he care what they think?

            1. Obama doesnt have to worry about republicans. The democrats need to worry about independents like me. I will likely vote democrat because I don’t like republican warmongering and spineless behavior towards the Israel lobby, but the democrats disgust me with their pandering to the extreme left. Let’s just say I dislike both and enjoy kicking them whenever possible.

               1. “the democrats disgust me with their pandering to the extreme left”

                  Could you give me a few examples of what “pandering” “disgust” you so much ?

                  Do you mean things like trying to have all Americans have access to the healthcare system ?

               2. What disgusts me about Obama’s governance?

                  1. Inmigration policy. I don’t agree with his unilateral decrees to legalize illegals.

                  2. Unilateral moves to make concessions to the Cuban dictatorship without getting anything in return.

                  3. The EPA rule making to control CO2 emissions, which accomplishes nothing practical.

                  4. Opposition to the Keystone XL which I happen to see as a move which preserves the Venezuelan dictatorship’s ability to sell their diluted bitumen in the USA gulf coast.

                  In other areas I see him as an absolute foreign policy failure, but that’s an establishment failure in general, a republican would have done a lot worse because today usa policy is controlled by the neocons, Israel lobby, and stupid imperialists who think the military are like plastic toys.

               3. First of all, Cuban and Venezuelan situations are blow back from capitalist imperialism over reach from the United States. Second, the United States basically stole half of the western states from Mexico over 150 years ago. Third, it’s the GOP who are an extension of the neocons. Fourth, most Americans(not just the far left) agree the failed policies you advocate for Cuba didn’t work and hurt more people than they help. Fifth, holding up the XL pipeline has made most Americans aware of the dirty polluting industry the oil business is and the importance of replacing it. Sixth, the EPA has done a good job of cleaning up pollution over the years. With the current dysfunctional GOP congress. I can’t think of a better agency to handle the co2 that is killing our only home mother earth. Seventh, since before Obama, Americans have been wanting congress to fix the countries immigration policy. Only to be blocked because most of them will register Democrat.

                  You should be disgusted by the GOP congress pandering to the right wing, unless your a right winger.

                  It goes both ways

               4. Chief, you just listed the reasons why you think one way and I think a different way. Your arguments sound empty to me, and I supposed mine do to you. I don’t like Obama even though I voted for the guy. I did so because I consider republican pandering to the neocons a clear and present danger to humanity. Let’s just say I’m not too happy with usa politicians, but I really really hate communist regimes. In my case it’s very personal, I have seen what they do close up.

            2. How about his party winning the next round of elections? What republicans think has a lot to do with how many of them turn out on election day.

               And what middle of the roaders think has a lot to do with how they vote as well.

         3. What price did he pay? The environmentalists helped get him elected.

            It could be a bargaining chip with the Republicans for other gains.

            The climate meeting in December is quite important, and some carbon needs to stay in the ground.

   9. One element why Obama is against the pipeline is the advise/lobbying of his Californian billionaire friend Styer whom he visited a few times. Styer was a hedge fund manager also dealing with crude oil. He quit the company and became an environmentalist. He said that he contributed about 100 Million Dollars to the Obama reelection. Others say that Styer is now in renewable energy projects and thus crude oil and coal is a hindrance.

      1. Individual contributions to a candidate are maxed out by law rather a lot less than $100 million.

         He could contribute big numbers to the party, but the party is not obligated to send it any one place, and in fact if it did that party chairman would lose his job more or less immediately as all other office holders object.

         Might also form a PAC and have the PAC produce ads for a candidate, but coordination with the candidate’s campaign is not allowed and there have been many instances of the ads run turning out to be counter to candidate policy.

   10. Doug, ref Keystone XL opposition, it’s political pandering to the democratic party’s core left wing potential voters. The oil well to wheels CO2 emissions are higher than average. But there’s an interesting issue Obama ignores, which I pointed out in letters (including one to the Congressional Budget Office): the canadian crude competes with venezuelan crude with identical characteristics.

       Thus the canadian supply arriving in the USA gulf coast leaves the venezuelan crude homeless, or they will compete fiercely for market share. And the venezuelan crude is shipped by tanker.

       I suspect the Venezuelan dictatorship, which touts itself as a Marxist follower of the Castro regime, is financing some pipeline opposition. And I see many watermelons look the other way when I mention the issue. That green movement has a heavy commie component. And they seem to sympathize with some pretty ugly leftist regimes.

       1. Who are watermelons?

          1. “‘Green’ on the outside, ‘Red’ on the inside.”

             Contempt is as contempt does.

   11. Doug L,

       Well, we can’t say that Obama is against KXL, because he stood in a pipe yard at Cushing OK, I believe it was, and announced that he had instructed his administration to do everything to expedite completion of the southern leg, from Cushing to the Gulf Coast. Said it was vital to America’s interest. This was toothless, since the southern leg is within the US and does not require his approval, but he did say it was vital. It’s been in operation now since January 2014.

       One of the comments here points out that there is ongoing local resistance along parts of the route of the northern segment, both from Nebraska farmers and from some of the Native American lands, which are sovereign. He can point to those as reasons to wait. One possibility is that he sees holding off on approval as putting pressure on Canada to improve its environmental stance, since waiting for Harper is counterproductive, but I don’t know how likely that is, of course. Obama is likely to be aware that oil-sands crude comes into the US in increasing volume year by year, so that may suggest KXL’s lack of importance to him.

       It’s pretty clear that CO2 from use of the oil that KXL could carry is tiny compared to CO2 emissions from coal, and expansion of existing pipelines has already added more capacity than KXL would, so I’m as curious as you are about what is behind the vehemence of the anti-KXL campaign. Fernando suspects commie money, of course; I like to think that the US coal industry is sneaking money to it, along with various members of the Gulf Coast oil patch. I’ve said for a long time that if I were CEO of a coal company, I’d make sure that disguised contributions were going to Bill McKibben’s 350.org to support the useful work they’re doing by keeping public attention away from the coal industry.

       1. Fernando suspects commie money, of course;

          LOL!

          Now there’s an oxymoron if ever there was one… of course it also depends on whose ox is being gored.

          BTW he really seems to enjoy constantly tossing out that tired old rotten watermelon cliché… It is so passé! Not to mention that it is also a word with a long history of racist connotations so I wish to hell he’d just stop using it. As for communists, heck I even had a girlfriend once who was a member of the communist party, I was young and she was very hot…and no I didn’t join the party. It was just another life experience that helped immunize me against all the many ISMS and Ideologies that seem to form people’s world views, even Fernando’s. The main thing that I took away from that experience is that as misguided as they might have been, they were still human beings and they were definitely not evil.

          1. Is deception evil, or should it be excused as a byproduct of simple misguidedness?

          2. Hi Fred , While I generally agree with you just about all the time I am with Fernando this time.

             By ”commie money” he means Venezuelan money of course and while the people in power there these days may not be classic communists they sure as hell aren’t capitalists or European style socialists either.

             I believe it is within reason to cut him a little slack and let ” commie money” pass as a figure of speech.

             I personally have no proof at all that the Venezuealan regime IS putting money into this issue but if they aren’t and haven’t been then it is to say the least out of character for them to have failed to do so.

             I may be just about the ONLY person in this forum at this time who has devoted a substantial number of evenings out of my mostly wasted ( according to most folks standards) life reading the history of communism and communist propaganda tactics and related stuff. Fernando excepted.

             The Russians were quite active from the thirties on in supplying money and training to various front organizations right on thru to the fall of the old USSR. These front organizations were located all over the world.

             A few thousand bucks spent on opposing the Keystone would have been an excellent bet for the Venezuelans. This money would of course have been funneled thru various people and organizations so that tracing it back to the source would be unlikely.

             The left liberal part of the audience is ALWAYS ready to believe any such accusations leveled against right wingers such as the Koch brothers. I am perfectly willing to believe them myself.

             The difference between me and the left leaning folk is that I believe BOTH sides employ dirty tricks on an ongoing routine basis.

             In this case the Koch brothers crowd of hard core right wingers plus the Venezuelans happen to be making one of those oft mentioned oddball couples referred to as strange bedmates in politics.

             Insofar as each side is even aware of the other they would either mutually hate each other s guts or just look at each other as another hog fighting for a prime spot at the trough. Probably a little of both.

             Fernando has street credibility when it comes to this sort of thing.

             The msm is generally very quick to point out right wing shenanigans when ever possible. It gives left-wingers a pass whenever it can. Witness the many times in the last year that the Obama administration bent the ACA act into a pretzel in administering it. No republican could ever have gotten away with that sort of thing without being called out as a lawbreaker in a flash.

             Or Hillary’s anointment as the likely Democratic nominee.

             The ONLY way a person who is mathematically literate could believe that she did not steal a substantial sum of money in the Cattle Gate affair would be to be TOTALLY ignorant of the unquestioned facts of her utterly incomprehensible string of winning bets.

             The odds against her doing so well have been computed as into the trillions to one. The only other top dog politician of recent times to my knowledge who has come close to claiming such magical powers is the current North Korean top doughboy who shot a hole in one at every hole the first time he played a round of golf. At least his cheerleaders tell us so. He is too modest to mention his golfing skills in public.

             I have ten dollars to a donut you will not hear any repeated prime time discussion of Cattle Gate from any msm outfit such as NPR or the NYT or CNN or MSNBC as the election approaches unless it is to put out fires if the right wing media manage to get traction on this old news.

             I can cover this bet up to ten thousand bucks at ten to one. Any takers?

             I am talking about the same amount of airtime as whatever they turn up on whoever the republicans run on any given ethical lapse.

             Now the REASON I bring this stuff up is to illustrate that the average person in this country these days really does not know much about left wing dirty politics as practiced in places such as Cuba and Venezuela.

             IF you want to know about such things you have to go LOOKING for the information.

             Incidentally I think Obama is doing the right thing in thawing relations with Cuba. More contact may get the commies out faster than sanctions. They have shown remarkable staying power in the face of sanctions.

             Commies believe in one man one vote one time. After that they believe in one man to vote FOR until the end of time.

             This obvious truth should immediately lead any open minded person to conclude that they will gladly dirty money tricks if it suits their ends. We should be surprised if they DON’T rather than if they DO.

             I don’t mind being labeled a right wing reactionary or any other such derogatory term so long as the facts are included in the discussion.

             I put on my welding leathers before I started composing this comment. 😉

             They are fireproof and they saved my hide from molten slag and intense uv on lots of occasion over the years. Unfortunately I am just about too old and fat to get into them anymore. LOL.

             1. “Fernando has street credibility when it comes to this sort of thing.”
                ~Old farmer mac

                Fernando has no credibility at all.

                1. Hear, hear.

          3. On the other hand I point out the Venezuelan crude arriving by tanker to the USA gulf coast is identical. And we see zero resistance to this blend by the “enviromentalists” who oppose the pipelines from Canada.

             I’m also aware of the huge amount of money stolen or laundered out of venezuela by the communists, which is carefully hidden and distributed to further their political aims. They have a very large organization financed by fake “advisory” or “consultancy” work suposedly done for the venezuelan regime. Some of it is done using Citgo contracts and “community grants”. CITGO is 100 % owned by PDVSA, it imports and processes the Venezuelan crude into the gulf coast, for those who aren’t aware. They stole at least $20 billion, that money wasn’t all put in private investments, several billion is used to undermine governments, finance political causes, and interfere in the internal politics of countries ranging from Greece to Argentina. I happen to think some of the anti keystone watermelon opposition is fueled with venezuelan cash. They don’t want competition in the US Gulf Coast heavy oil market.

             1. “I’m also aware of the huge amount of money stolen or laundered out of venezuela by the communists”

                These guys are liquor store robbers compared to the Americans bankers

                1. Not really. I suppose you would have to receive an education on the share of the national economy stolen by the venezuelan Chavistas. The corruption and theft have been incredible. Their communist ideas mixed with so much stealing destroyed the economy and society, there’s nothing comparable in recent decades.

                2. Do you mean like the Bush Administration? Like I said, Banditos

   12. from last August

       http://scalinggreen.com/2014/08/seven-reasons-to-walk-away-from-keystone-xl/

   13. Doug,

       A post I made at the bottom of the last thread, I feel is relevant here.

       It looks like after all this time, Western Canadian Select (WCS) crude has only just found its way by pipeline to the gulf coast. Apparently it has not been until the Seaway Twin opened a short while ago. So now the race has begun to displace Mexican and Venezuelan heavy crude and maybe Saudi crude out of the gulf coast refineries.

       The story amazes me, as I thought the idea of the reversed Seaway pipeline a couple of years ago was the beginning WCS reaching the coast.

       https://rbnenergy.com/they-did-it-seaway-canadian-heavy-crude-starts-to-compete-at-gulf-coast-refineries

       Since December about 240 Mb/d of heavy Canadian crude has flowed into the Houston Enbridge ECHO terminal on the Seaway Twin pipeline where it must now duke it out with incumbent suppliers to the Gulf Coast’s 1.5 MMb/d of heavy crude “coking” capacity.

       PS. This WCS crude should displace the Mexican and Venezuelan crude and not add to storage, unlike the light shale oils that is creating the problems with the product mix of the US refineries, geared to heavy crude.

       1. Toolpush I believe I remember reading about this oil reaching the coast some time ago in a discussion about the Keystone in some news magazine. Sorry I can’t remember which one now.

          A more accurate article would probably have said that the Seaway Twin line would deliver enough WCS to offset SOME Mexican and Venezuelan heavy crude.

          I am not a numbers guy but my impression is that 240k daily is a rather minor fraction of our heavy oil imports.

          1. OFM,

             Before reading the article, I would have agreed with you, but apparently only small amounts had made it through to the Gulf, as the chart in the article points out.
             You are correct in the fact that a pathway had been made from Canada to the gulf with the reversal on the original Seaway pipeline, along with the opening last year of southern leg of the Keystone pipeline, but it seems as though it was the expansion of the Flanagan pipeline from Chicago area to Cuching that has allowed the WCS pipeline capacity to make it to the coast. I suspect WCS has been pushed out by the shale oil, and the willingness of the mid-west refineries to buy and process as much of the WCS as Canada could provide.

             1. Midwest refinery owners saw a strategic advantage in the differential created by a pipeline choke which limits canadian heavy from reaching the U.S. Gulf a Coast. This led to large investments in kits to allow these refineries to handle the heavy crude. They are now reaping the benefit.

                I’m very familiar with the chess game being played because I was planning a large oil development in venezuela about 10 years ago. A large scale heavy oil project has to be planned considering where the crude will be marketed and refined. What we do is work down to the individual refineries we think may be interested in buying the crude, and we even try to coordinate with the owners to invest in coking upgrades.

                It is my work in this area, seeing it from the Venezuelan producer point of view, which lets me see why they are terrified of the canadian crude reaching the usa gulf coast.

                To pdvsa the arrival of canadian competition means having to find a home for 700 thousand barrels per day of junky dilbit. And that crude may have to move backwards all the way to India and China to find a refinery willing to take it.

                1. Fernando,

                   I though Vz had all sorts of deals with China, for their heavy oil. Is much heavy oil being sent to China from Vz? Or are they waiting for the enlarged Panama Canal to open before they ship any quantities?
                   I know China built several heavy refineries to make use of Saudi and Kuwaiti oil, but I am sure they would like a mix of Vz oil, just to balance out suppler risk. Even a bit of Canadian WSC might not go astray, if they can ever find away of getting it to tide water somewhere/anywhere.

                2. Tool push, the Venezuelans have a loan fund they pay back with oil. The trip is really long, it’s cheaper to use the Ultra VLCCs, so the loads are taken out of Venezuela using half million barrel loads to Caribbean tank farms (say in Aruba). The loads are combined and loaded into a Suez Max or larger vessel.

                   But Venezuela needs cash now. So they send oil to China, but not all the oil they can export. The breakdown I heard was 0.7 Mmbpd to usa, 0.4 mmbopd to China, 0.1 mmbopd to Cuba, the rest is sold wherever. The best market by far is the usa gulf coast (close, the refineries like it). But some of the crude is better quality and goes to Europe. All of this gets confused because pdvsa keeps the oil flows a state secret. I’ve seen spreadsheets they use but the guys who showed them to me have left venezuela, so I don’t have anything recent. They are also importing crudes to blend the 8 degree API. What is clear is that all the super heavies are usually blended to make a Maya competitor. Maya is losing production capacity in a hurry, so in venezuela the focus is how to keep the usa oil market. They’ll fight for that tooth and nail.

                3. By the way, last night a very good source reported the Venezuelan government is selling or hocking gold from its reserves to three banks. Each bank is putting up $430 million into state accounts, but the sale documents state it’s $500 million. The details as to where the missing $70 million go aren’t disclosed.

                   The Maduro dictatorship is using harsh repression against the people, young students known to organize protests are appearing murdered with their hands tied behind their backs, always shot in the head. A man who had been tortured at the secret police station known as “The Grave” agreed to sign papers accusing opposition politicians of conspiracy to carry out a coup, was put under house arrest, but now has disappeared and the state authorities are threatening his family. Rumor has it he’s trying to reach Colombia to disclose how he was tortured.

   14. Hi Doug,

       I occasionally have conversations with a gentleman that works out in the same gym as me–he works in the oil industry, apparently in oil distribution. He is very conservative and believes a lot of the right wing Fox News conspiracy theories. In any event just a couple of days ago we were discussing the Keystone and he volunteered this hypothesis as to why Obama is against it: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, which is owned by Warren Buffett (a key backer of Obama), would lose billions of dollars in oil freight if the Keystone XL Pipeline were approved.

       I did a quick Google search of the idea as proposed by this gentleman and found the following:

       https://www.cigarbid.com/FORUM/c/posts/641371/Suspicions-Verified-BNSF-Outrage-

       Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad owns all of the rail lines in the US connecting to western Canada . They haul 80%+ of the crude oil from Canada to the Midwest and Texas , or charge other short line railroads a fee to use BNSF tracks.

       BNSF charges $30 per barrel to haul the oil. The proposed “Keystone pipeline” would cost $10 per barrel according to the US State Department’s own estimates and perhaps a lower amount as reflected in other estimates.

       BNSF is owned by Berkshire-Hathaway whose chairman is Warren Buffett. In the last 2 election cycles, Buffett gave extensively to Democrat causes and candidates, particularly Obama in 2012. He also bundled and hosted numerous fundraisers for Obama. If anyone believes the pipeline
       isn’t being blocked by Obama on Buffett’s behalf, you need to seek immediate medication.
       On this basis, Buffett could stand to lose $2 Billion a year if the Keystone pipeline goes in and he makes the same amount every year it’s delayed. Is this “crony capitalism” at its finest or what?

       Of course I do not endorse this position. Quite the contrary from the research I did it appears to be complete nonsense. But, I thought you may be amused by what the tin foil hat guys think.

       Best,
       Tom

       1. Tom,

          I understand the story of BNSF wanting to control the transport of oil out of the Bakken area as they have many connections in the area. But if I find it hard to follow the story into Canada. If you look at the map below, Canada National has the natural monopoly from Alberta to the Gulf Coast, while Canadian Pacific has good connections to the East coast from Alberta.
          Of course political conspiracies, also make a better story than transport logistics.

          

          1. CN

             

             1. CP

                

          2. Anybody ignorant enough, and sufficiently lacking in moral fiber, to even consider the heretical suggestion that Buffet could be less than an angel should be summarily dragged to a stake and burnt alive on national television.

             SARCASM LIGHT IS ON.

             Come on folks.

             IF anybody is actually dumb enough to believe Buffet wants the pipeline built I have something better to sell them than a toll bridge. I have a working flying saucer cargo ship with a full load of dilithium crystals and Dhoppers. Cheap. Cash on the barrel head only.

             1. OFM,

                I maybe slow, so I am not real sure what you are getting at, but there is a long way between, not liking something to happen, and actively working against it.
                What I pointed out was, Buffet has a lot of skin in the game concerning Bakken oil, but strangely enough several pipelines are being constructed as I write, with no noticeable opposition.
                Meanwhile, Buffet has no natural market from the Canadian WCS, expect as a pass along load from one of the Canadian railways. Yet, these pipelines are all seeing mounting opposition. Where is the link to Buffet?
                Rockman always said, he didn’t want the Keystone built as it would lower the price of Gulf coast oil. I didn’t hear him say he planned to lay himself in front of a bulldozer.

                1. Buffet may actually be an angel.

                   He has pointed out that his secretary pays taxes at a rate much higher than he does but I haven’t heard that he has volunteered to pay more himself.

                   My point is that while most of the regulars in any forum where peak oil and environment are discussed are always ready to believe just about ANYTHING about a rich conservative ……

                   They on the other hand seem to be willing to give a rich liberal any amount of benefit of the doubt. I respect Buffet as a business man but so far I haven’t seen any evidence he really is an environmentalist.

                   His political contributions are going to the party opposing the pipeline. His rail business is going to fall off sharply once it is built according to just about everything I have read about it.

                   A HUGE fortune is at stake on a month to month or year to year basis. He has it and continues to accumulate it until the pipeline gets built.

                   He would not get even a CRUMBS WORTH of respectability in this forum if he were contributing to the republicans instead.

                   I detect a substantial whiff or either naiveté or hypocrisy.

                   Maybe I am wrong about Buffet but I am utterly convinced I am right about naiveté and hypocrisy in general.

                2. OFM,

                   As a non American, the US political scene looks to be very badly broken to me. Both sides have moved so far apart, the system has become unworkable, but is as far as my interest in your political system goes.
                   I am not proposing Buffet is an unblemished angle, but i don’t see that much of an interest from his point of view. as the maps show he has very little interest in Alberta oil. The Keystone was planned to carry 200 or 3oo,ooo bpd of Bakken oil, along with the WCS. So he does has an interest. But if this interest was central to his railways plans, why are not the other pipelines out of the Bakken being opposed?
                   I actually feel Fernando’s idea of Vz money fighting the Keystone pipeline makes a lot more sense, than Buffet.
                   Some people seem to become political putching bags whether they deserve it or not, and other just seem to cruise on by.
                   An example of this is Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Gates has been castigated by nearly everyone that has ever turned on a computer, for wanting to monopolize the PC market. Even though he had open architecture where people could design their own software and hardware add ons. Hackers and virus writers spent every non sleeping moment attempting to bring the man down.
                   Yet, Steve Jobs, the darling of the geeks, has the most locked up, controlled, monopolized system imaginable. I have been told, as I do not own any apple equipment, you can’t even play any music on apple devises unless you have paid apple? and I am glad i have a good sense of direction, and don’t have to use their maps, Jobs gets away scott free from the criticism for some reason.
                   Buffet, may be involved, but the logic just doesn’t follow through for me, that is all I am saying.

8. For you termite murderers from last post, please cut “the ultimate soil engineers” some slack. Today’s NYT to the rescue:
   “Ants will crowd over each other and get trapped at exits or intersections. But I’ve seen no evidence of selfishness in termites.”
   “Bacteria in the termite’s gut are avid nitrogen fixaters, able to extract the vital element from the air and convert it into a usable sort of fertilizer, benefiting the termite host and the vast underground economy.”

   http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/termites-are-guardians-of-the-soil.html?_r=0

9. Carryover
   Ron – I put in my post from the Science article their calculation of their specific calculated amount of methane and CO2 released into the earth atmosphere annually by termites, and then I asked anyone to do the math and compare it to what humans currently release. In that post I did not just refer to it just as “a large amount.” Repeating –

   1982 TERMITE STUDY
   Methane = 1.5 x 10 to the 14th power grams annually
   CO2 = 5 x 10 to the 16th power grams annually

   2014 HUMAN ACTIVITY
   Methane = ?? grams annually
   CO2 = ?? grams annually

   As I asked in my previous post, if someone can fill in the ??, we might be able to have an intelligent current perspective from both sides. I never claimed that it was 10 times – I said others have said it, but humans emit a lot more now than in 1982, so we needed current figures to compare.

   Also, is there some measurement that converts the effect of methane to CO2? Such as: one gram of methane is as harmful as three grams of CO2 -just an illustration, not a guess or a statement.
   And, the title of the article, the authors, and the abstract that I showed were typed word for word from the article, which I attributed to from the magazine’s exact volume, date and pages – so I do not think that I did anything improper, but if you are a copyright attorney, you might be able to give me some free advice to keep me out of prison.

   1. How about this? Methane contributes 28% of the warming CO2 contributes. While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 levels are 380 ppm while methane levels are 1.75ppm. Therefore the amount of warming methane contributes is calculated at 28% of the warming CO2 contributes.

      1. Termite GHG’s and human GHG’s are apples and oranges. Everybody who looks at the “volume” of CO2/methane that termites (and cows, for that matter) generate and compare it with human-created GHG’s forget to look at the SOURCE of the carbons that are freed back to the atmosphere. Termites aren’t digging down 1000’s of feet and “liberating” as GHG’s fossil hydrocarbons that were sequestered millions of years ago. They are just recycling hydrocarbon from surface sources, mostly from plant materials that had temporarily sequestered some atmospheric CO2 through their life cycle, but have died over the past few decades. This carbon was going to end up back in the atmosphere anyway, one way or another, either via forest fires or microbe digestion or other carbon-cycle life decomposition process.

         Man, on the other hand, has been pumping/mining many millions of years worth of sequestered carbon and releasing it to the atmosphere in just a few decades. Carbon that may have never been returned to the atmosphere otherwise, and definitely not released at this rate.

   2. The carbon dioxide emission factors in this article are expressed in terms of the energy content of coal as pounds of carbon dioxide per million Btu. Carbon dioxide (CO2) forms during coal combustion when one atom of carbon (C) unites with two atoms of oxygen (O) from the air. Because the atomic weight of carbon is 12 and that of oxygen is 16, the atomic weight of carbon dioxide is 44. Based on that ratio, and assuming complete combustion, 1 pound of carbon combines with 2.667 pounds of oxygen to produce 3.667 pounds of carbon dioxide. For example, coal with a carbon content of 78 percent and a heating value of 14,000 Btu per pound emits about 204.3 pounds of carbon dioxide per million Btu when completely burned.(5) Complete combustion of 1 short ton (2,000 pounds) of this coal will generate about 5,720 pounds (2.86 short tons) of carbon dioxide.

      7823 million tons of coal mined annually worldwide, 5,720 lbs of CO2 per ton of coal.

      When you multiply those two numbers you have 44 747 560 000 000 lbs of CO2.

      One kilogram equals 2.2 lbs. The large number you see divided by 2.2 then times 1000 to make it grams.

      2 033 980 000 000 000 grams of CO2 belched into the atmosphere in one year by humans burning coal 24/7 all around the world.

      2.03398 x 10 to the fifteenth power.

      Need we go on?

      edit: corrected the math.

   3. Clueless, I don’t know what a “power gram” is but CO2 emissions are measured in Metric tons. I have been communicating with a termite man from the Termite Detector Site. That is origin of this quote, (all bold below is mine):

      Scientists have calculated that termites alone produce ten times as much carbon dioxide as all the fossil fuels burned in the whole world in a year.

      His email says, among other things:

      • Scientists estimate that, worldwide, termites may release over 150 million tons of methane gas into the atmosphere annually. In our lower atmosphere this methane then reacts to form carbon dioxide and ozone.

      • The Science magazine reports that termites annually generate more than twice as much carbon dioxide as mankind does burning fossil fuels. One termite species annually emits 600,000 metric tons of formic acid into the atmosphere, an amount equal to the combined contributions of automobiles, refuse combustion and vegetation.

      Notice how “ten times” has now been reduced by a factor of five. It is now “twice the fossil fuel emisions”. But at least now we have a figure of 150 million metric tons of methane to work with. Of course methane is not CO2, but methane eventually oxides into CO2. I don’t know the conversion factor but let’s guess three to one. (Each carbon atoms take on two oxygen atoms and triples its weight… approximately.) Then 150 million tons of methane would eventually become 450 million metric tons of CO2. For that to be twice the emissions from all fossil fuels then fossil fuels emissions would be about 225 million metric tons. However…

      Carbon Emissions

      After a short dip in 2009 due to the global financial crisis, emissions from fossil fuels rebounded in 2010 and have since grown 2.6 percent each year, hitting an all-time high of 9.7 billion tons of carbon in 2012.

      Emissions from fossil fuel burning is about 22 times the emissions from termites. However even these numbers are in question. The estimate of world termite methane emissions from two termite mounds in Guatemala in 1982 have long since been superseded .

      And the final word: What are the main sources of methane emissions?

      There are both natural and human sources of methane emissions. The main natural sources include wetlands, termites and the oceans. Natural sources create 36% of methane emissions. Important human sources come from landfills, livestock farming, as well as the production, transportation and use of fossil fuels. Human-related sources create the majority of methane emissions, accounting for 64% of the total.

      1. I stated that I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SUPERSCRIPT in a post. So, I wrote it out. For example: Per the article, annual grams of termite emitted CO2 = 5 x 10 to the 16th power; the same as 5 x 10 with a superscript of 16. That is: 5 with 16 zeros. So, grams just meant like 50,000,000,000,000,000 [note the 16 zeros] grams (a metric system weight measurement) – so, 50 quadrillion grams; or equal to 110,231,221,009,000 in pounds (453.592 grams per pound) – or, roughly 110 trillion pounds; or 55,115,610,504 US tons (2000 lbs. per ton) – or, roughly 55 billion tons of CO2 per year from termites.
         And Ron states only 9.7 billion tons from fossil fuel in 2012.
         Like Ron, I would have bolded my answer, but I do not know how to do that either.
         Actually, if my math is right, we just need to kill 20% of the termites to offset all of the fossil fuel CO2 “pollution.” I use Terminix, so I am doing my part.
         Ron – note: no “power grams”

         1. Okay, one more time. That 1982 article in Science was based on two termite mounds in Guatemala. It has never been repeated nor confirmed. In fact it has been disproven many times. That was over 32 years ago. Today, over 32 years later, we have far better data on CO2 emissions, Methane emissions an termite emissions. We now have far, far more data than be produced by observing two termite mounds. Here is a 2014 article, (one of the footnotes is dated August 2014) that tells it like it is.

            What are the main sources of methane emissions?

            The main natural sources include wetlands, termites and the oceans.
            Natural sources create 36% of methane emissions.
            Human-related sources create the majority of methane emissions, accounting for 64% of the total.1

            Notice the ‘1’. That means the source and publisher of this data is referred to in footnote 1.

            And further down in the same article.

            Termites

            Termites are a significant natural source of methane. During the normal digestion process of a termite, methane is produced. Termites eat cellulose but rely on micro-organisms in their gut to digest it which produces methane during the process. This is responsible for 12% of natural methane emissions.1

            Each termite produces very small amounts of methane on a daily basis. However, when this is multiplied by the world population of termites, their emissions add up to 23 million tonnes of methane annually.1
            Notice the reference to footnote ‘1’ again.

            Footnote 1

            “Contribution of anthropogenic and natural sources to atmospheric methane variability.” Nature 443, no. 7110 (2006)

            Nature 2006 far outweighs Science 1986. Termites are responsible for 12 percent of natural emissions. That is termites are responsible for 12% of 36% or 4.3% of all methane emissions or 23 million tons of methane emissions annually.

            That should settle it.

            1. My post was about CO2 and you reply about methane. If you read my first post, the methane that they came up with was 1/333 of the amount that they came up with for CO2. So, they had 165 million tons of methane. And, if you read the article, 99% of their work was in the laboratory, then they did a field test that confirmed the laboratory work. And I guess that you noted their terrible credentials: The National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO and The Max Planck Institute for Atmospheric Chemistry in Germany.
               So, settled for you and not settled for me. We agree to disagree. That happens a lot in life.

               1. I didn’t see those credentials. I really don’t know what The Max Planck Institute said or The National Center for Atmospheric Research said. All I saw was about two termite mounds in Guatemala and they gathered their conclusions from that. I am not saying those credentials were not there but only that I did not see them and I specifically did not see what those institutes said.

                  However the numbers they came up with in 1982 was astronomical and unbelievable. I think modern research has come up with far more respectful numbers and those numbers were reflected in that 2014 article.

                  However there seems to be a huge blind spot in your argument Clueless, that is the continued and dramatic rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Surely you will agree that the number of termites have not been rising like that. The one thing that has been rising at that rate is fossil fuel use.

               2. “Nature 2006 far outweighs Science 1986…

                  …That should settle it.”
                  ~Ron Patterson

                  I wish it did. But Fernando raised an interesting objection:

                  “Nature is no longer a reliable source in this field, they have a heavy political slant.”
                  ~Fernando Leanme

                  I think Ron is right on this one, but I wouldn’t want to jump to any conclusions. Maybe Fernando could lay out his argument in more detail for everyone to evaluate.

               3. I have replied to this below where I have a wider format. But there I agree with Fernando, Nature Magazine does have a political slant, but so does Science Magazine.

                  Permalink to my article below

         2. Actually, if my math is right, we just need to kill 20% of the termites to offset all of the fossil fuel CO2 “pollution.” I use Terminix, so I am doing my part.

            Is that an attempt at humor?! Or are you really that incredibly ignorant?!

            Please take some time to educate yourself. You can start by spending 22 minutes with E.O. Wilson

            http://www.ted.com/talks/e_o_wilson_on_saving_life_on_earth?language=en

            1. You know, I am just not going to get into name calling or questioning someone’s intelligence. If I did, I would be thrown off the site. I made one mistake in that regard, and I apologized to Ron for it.

               1. I agree, I wish people would stop using such language. I tolerate it because I really don’t want this site to resemble TOD. But I think this name calling is getting out of hand.

               2. I think it is good to strongly promote the notion that anti-science propaganda is not welcome here, irrespective of the language employed.

                  Sarcastically making fun of patterns of DENIAL is both entertaining and educational at the same time.

               3. I am NOT questioning you intelligence!

                  I AM questioning your level of knowledge.

                  ig·no·rance
                  ˈiɡnərəns/
                  noun
                  lack of knowledge or information.
                  “he acted in ignorance of basic procedures”
                  synonyms: incomprehension of, unawareness of, unconsciousness of, unfamiliarity with, inexperience with, lack of knowledge about, lack of information about;

            2. Jeebus Ron, Fred’s comment was completely in-bounds.

               No Red Card, not even close to a Yellow Card for reason’s sake!

               One of the main reasons I monitor this site is that it is NOT like TOD…you don’t have the heavy hand of Leanan censoring crap left, right, and sideways.

               This site seems fairly self-policing to me.

               Out!

      2. Ron,

         Someone mentioned rice paddies, and they have to be important. The spread of paddy-rice farming may well have led to the end of the decline of methane after the thermal maximum of the early Holocene. Important number, I expect.

         Another source that has begun to attract research is reservoirs: organic matter carried downstream into reservoirs can settle into anoxic bottom water and yield methane upon decomposition by anaerobes.

         1. About termites and cow farts and everything else having to do with methane and co2:

            It doesn’t really matter at all what the contribution from any given source is in terms of the natural balance of the atmosphere.

            So long as the amounts are constant the atmosphere will maintain a fairly steady temperature everything else equal – varying up and down just a little but staying about the same.

            But when some or most sources stay about the same – and ore or another source is increasing substantially – then the atmosphere will gradually increase in temperature until it reaches a new equilibrium state.

            Man made ( burning ff ) and man associated ( cow fart) emissions have been increasing substantially while the other sources are still producing about the same amounts.

            Therefore the concentration of both pollutants is increasing and with the increase the temperature is going to go up.

            It’s our fault folks.

            A family business can remain solvent for years or decades taking in and paying out the same approximate amounts every year. But let that business get to putting a few dollars a day away in an interest bearing account and after a few years there is a lot of money accumulated. Same thing with pollution. It adds up linearly but the effect grows geometrically.

            1. Thanks, OFM. I have to say I’ve skimmed and not read every word of this man v. termite debate, but the very simple big picture critical aspect has been all but left out. HVACman spoke to it above, as you do here, and I just want to underscore in very simple terms:

               Prior to the industrial revolution 200 yrs ago (and the agricultural revolution 10k yrs ago) there was a natural cycle of carbon in-carbon out between earth, ocean and atmosphere. An annual balance maintained, while cycling up and down over 10’s-100’s of thousands of years (in response to Milankovich cycling and other factors). Call it gobzillions of tons. The number hardly matters. It was a long, slow process, largely in annual balance. Then humans changed the landscape with ag, and later the ‘airscape’ directly with industry. What we contribute is, as HVAC said above, taken from the depths, not from the soils. We’re mining carbon from the long term cycle and dumping it into the short term cycle. That’s why atmospheric and oceanic carbon are increasing at geologically rapid (unprecedented?) rates. Hence the abupt climate change and ocean acidification we have set in motion and are just now getting underway in earnest.

            2. I say we eat all the cows and change the diet to medusa burgers and cricket fajitas.

10. A piece in the LA Times today about the effects of the oil pricing decline in West Texas. Boom to bust, but still people are hurting.

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-texas-oil-20150303-story.html#page=1

11. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/oxford-university-press-bans-mention-pork-pigs-books-avoid-offending-muslims-jews-1483378

    It is sad the pc rot has penetrated so far as to infect this ancient university which has until now defended free speech and academic freedom.

    ”One of the biggest education publishers in the world has warned its authors not to mention pigs or sausages in their books to avoid causing offence.
    Oxford University Press (OUP) said all books must take into consideration other cultures if they hope to sell copies in countries across the world.
    As a result, the academic publisher has issued guidance advising writers to avoid mentioning pigs or “anything else which could be perceived as pork” so as not to offend Muslim or Jewish people.”

    It is a little is ingenious of them to mention offending Jews at this late date.

    The PC crowd wants us all to believe that Muslim culture where women are more or less held as PROPERTY by men is morally equivalent to modern western culture. Mustn’t offend anybody by pointing out the truth ya know.

    Sometimes the truth is extraordinarily nasty but it is still necessary to take it into account when it is relevant.

    I for one will NEVER knuckle under to PC bullshit.

    1. Old farmer Mac, I used to live in a jewish community for a while. The way I saw it there’s a faction which seems to treat women as second class citizens. I suspect all religions have extremist factions with pretty odd behavior. Including Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.

       1. Fernando I agree with you about Jews treating women as second class citizens but they are infinitely better in this respect than Muslims. Women are treated to some extent as second class citizens in my own culture but that part of the local culture is fast fading away.

          In my own family the women in the last generation are outdoing the men by a considerable margin in terms of professional and business accomplishments.

          Local preachers are very careful to avoid saying much these days about the ” proper place ” or proper role of women in the church or the home or in business for fear that they will take their families and their contributions to the collection plate elsewhere.

          Sex discrimination in Christian churches has always been a major issue but it is slowly dieing out. Too slowly but still slowly.

          My point was that the university never got to around to worrying about offending Jews during its long and distinguished history – UNTIL NOW..

          The timing makes me laugh. We all know who the PC element there is afraid of offending.

          When you fail to speak up about important matters for fear of offending somebody you have essentially given up on freedom of speech and academic freedom as well.

       2. Fernando, I empathize. I was raised among the members of the exclusionary, self-superior, parasitic tribe worshiping one of the many fearful, jealous, vengeful, angry, violent, genocidal, misogynistic, Semitic desert sky gods, i.e., “money” in the contemporaneous case as Marx noted nearly 170 years ago, an infinitesimally small ethnic/”religious” group that represents no more than 2% of the US population but disproportionately influences, if not controls, mass media “news” and “entertainment” (film, music, gambling, porn, etc.), advertising, finance via Wall St., rentier extraction via “Social Media Valley” IPOs and stock option compensation, and tax, monetary, “education”, and foreign policy.

          “Bibi’s” speech was exemplary of the self-superior, fascist-militarist-imperialist fear- and war-mongering, condescending mindset of the disproportionately infinitesimally small tribe whose Kosher tail all too often wags the Anglo-American imperial dog at the behest and admiration of the Anglo-American, German, Dutch, Swiss, and Milanese (and marginally Saudi and Middle Eastern oil emirate) int’l banking syndicate’s untouchable Power Elite owners and benefactors.

          (Of course, the fact of the matter is that the “State of Israel” has always been a client garrison-state created by Anglo-American empire after WW II to prevent the Soviets from creating their own version at the onset of the Cold War. The Israeli people have been largely pawns on the Cold War and post-Cold War geopolitical chessboard for Anglo-American oil empire. Bibi is just playing his prescribed role in agitating for the purpose of advancing the West’s influence, power, and control in the oil-rich region of the world.)

          Shalom.

          1. DAMNED if you haven’t just about convinced me the Jews are SUPERMEN, BC.

             Sarcasm light on.

             I would not really want to dispute your last paragraph however as there is in my estimation a kernel of truth in it.

             Jews aren’t REALLY welcome anywhere but Isreal in my humble opinion.

             Now I will throw this out as an aside to my comments in the past about religions adding to the FITNESS (as in the survival of the fittest in Darwinian evolution ) of the followers in the collective.

             The Jews have shown incredible tenacity and courage in the face of every sort of trouble for a very long time and they are still around as a distinct ethnic / cultural group. Given the history of discrimination against them it is nothing less than amazing they are still around. I can’t think of any other group that has survived so much adversity for so long off the top of my head.

             I know quite a few having once married into a Jewish community once and found them to be just about like all the other people I knew in their day to day lives except they ate somewhat differently and kept a few odd holidays etc that my folks didn’t etc.

             The thing that always impressed me most about them was that they were especially observant of the rules laid out in the old scriptures about the business of succeeding in day to day life. Work hard take care of each other don’t tell lies live modestly put something aside for a rainy day be faithful to your spouse etc etc.

             My wife’s only surviving grandparent at the time we were married had a copy of the Ten Commandments prominently displayed in her parlor.

             So did my own grandmothers. On BOTH sides of the family.

             And my family has done pretty well by itself by following the rules laid out.

             A God that is not there is there just the same.

             Anybody who has it in for Jews is probably doesn’t actually know very much about them.

             My ex wife worked two jobs for years in order to save enough money for a down payment on a house for instance. She will retire well off but not because she has lied and cheated and run sleazy businesses but because she never wastes a dime. She packs her lunch while the other women she works with eat out every day. She donates to charity both time and money. Given her income and the hours she works she donates generously indeed.

             A couple of bucks a day invested for thirty years or so if you invest well and plow any dividends back in will generally leave you pretty well off. Just about every Jew I ever met understands this basic math. Maybe one or two in ten Protestants or Catholics I have met understands it.

             Now about that last paragraph. It is not really important at this point in time why Isreal exists as a nation where it does.

             The important thing is that modern day Israelis are incredibly tough smart sons of bitches ( the language Patton used to describe the kind of men he wanted in his army UP FRONT ) determined to survive.

             Their neighbors make speeches on just about a daily basis about wiping them off the face of the earth. Their neighbors out number them many many times to one.

             I have always been a sucker for the underdog myself.

             1. Old farmer mac kills two birds with one stone.

                I think I’m gonna be sick.

                1. Have at it and puke your guts up.

                2. As clifman points out below, the pork story you posted was not a credible one. It was some bullshit right wing propaganda. This whole thread, which grows directly from your bullshit ‘news’ story, is an offensive waste of time. It doesn’t belong here.

                   Shame on you.

             2. My point was simply that all religions have ultra orthodox factions which abuse women and have what I consider distasteful political aims.

                I prefer not to get into Israeli politics in a peak oil forum, because I disagree with Israeli government aims. Disagreeing with Israel openly isn’t a good idea.

                1. “Disagreeing with Israel openly isn’t a good idea.”

                   So you feel persecuted by Jews? Interesting.

                   This whole thread is really gross and offensive. And transparent.

                   Old farmer mac started a little anti semitic mini forum right here on peakoilbarrel. Amazing.

                2. Your comment is an example as to why disagreeing with Israeli government policy isn’t a good idea. One is liable to get smeared, insulted, called antisemitic, nazi, etc. The better solution is to avoid the subject.

             3. It’s spelled “Isra el”, not “is real”. El is a god.

                Practice assignment: Is Israel real? Yes, Israel is real. Try spelling it without looking.

    2. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/15/books-pigs-global-publishing-oxford-university-press-children

       1. The very fact that the ” suggestions ” have been made are all the proof necessary to understand the issue.

          The way things work in academia is that if you don’t toe the party line in the social sciences and the arts and humanities you just don’t ever advance very far in your career.

          These days the party line is the PC line.

          It is different in a hard science. You can disagree and advance to the chairmanship of your department if you can prove your current superiors are mistaken and you know more than they do. You might have to wait for the old folks to die if you don’t want to move but prove the establishment wrong on any significant point in the hard sciences and you will be offered a professorship some place or another.

          Every body has a piece of the truth.

          The Gaurdian is a superb paper in most respects but the PC crowd has a hell of a lot of power there.

          I read it almost every day.

          It might be the best free paper on the net when it comes to environmental and personal privacy and liberty issues. It is in my opinion.

          I agree with just about every thing in it except some of the pc and feminist ranting.
          The trouble with feminists from my pov is that none of them seem to have any sense of humor at all – at least not any of the ones writing there currently.

    3. Lyrics to Peace Anthem For Palestine
       By Tim Minchin

       You don’t eat pigs,
       We don’t eat pigs,
       It seems it’s been that way forever

       So if you don’t eat pigs,
       And we don’t eat pigs,
       Why not, not eat pigs together?

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UO6YlkYNJQ

    4. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/oxford-university-press-dismisses-reports-ban-pork-pigs-books-1483609

       It would appear that this ‘ban’ is not what it appears. A much more nuanced advisory regarding children’s books was taken out of context and blown out of proportion.

       1. Hi clifman.

          Thank you for finding this. It figures that the story that generated this thread was not real or true at all. And it also figures that certain people might believe it and help spread such a fake story. I’ll bet the authors of the fake news would be very happy to see the results of their propaganda effort.

12. uh oh..

    “One live risk right now is of insurers investing in assets that could be left ‘stranded’ by policy changes which limit the use of fossil fuels,” Bank of England official Paul Fisher told (pdf) the Economist’s Insurance Summit 2015 in London on Tuesday. “As the world increasingly limits carbon emissions, and moves to alternative energy sources, investments in fossil fuels and related technologies—a growing financial market in recent decades—may take a huge hit.”

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/03/bank-england-issues-warning-over-looming-carbon-bubble-threat

    1. Fisher doesn’t realize oil reserves are mostly located in OPEC nations. I don’t think the Saudis will be selling their shares in Aramco.

       1. Fernando I nominate this for the quote of the day.

          I am not into keeping track of numbers but I remember reading that about ninety percent of all the oil in the world is owned by various national governments.

          A carbon tax , perhaps a pretty stiff one , will probably be enacted in most countries eventually but maybe not so much for environmental reasons as to one raise revenues and two encourage the efficient use of energy and encourage conservation.

          High motor fuel taxes have worked wonders for the European countries that have them – all of them to my knowledge.

          People drive smaller cars and drive them less. They are more willing to live in cities and use mass transit. More willing to build more mass transit.

          Environmentalists and populists in the USA will probably eventually crawl into bed together with a few socialist types and get a high gas tax passed here too.

          The populists will be on board because they will resent the rich being able to drive when they can no longer afford to do so. The socialists are always looking for more tax money. The greens are self explanatory.

          A few other odd characters such as the military and the occasional conservative who sees dependence on imported oil as a foolish risk to the country as well as a waste of treasure will join in.

          I hope we do get a high gasoline tax but it won’t happen anytime soon. When it comes it should come in gradually rather than all at once to allow people time to get used to it and buy new cars that are easier on gas as they trade or scrap their older cars.

       2. fossil fuels is more than OPEC oil..

          http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/01/07/groundbreaking-study-confirms-we-must-leave-fossil-fuels-ground

          1. but of course this is based on a paper published in Nature and means nothing

             http://www.nature.com/articles/nature14016.epdf?referrer_access_token=g7hFw5ifcRX7Z9CjlVi3MdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MEzzy4wDRQte5fViQxiPJjJIfgcjxiQpfQtqwAkMQY0Dnqm3fZ_NBKtCNsc1bwQ41mnUC9bH9yQl-AbKQ83Nev

             1. Easy rider the arguments made are valid in principle but bans on the use of fossil fuels in my opinion are never going to be implemented solely on the basis of environmental considerations.

                What I am getting at is that there might or probably will be coalitions of people who will work together to at least get higher taxes applied to fossil fuels – not just oil but coal and gas too although I only mentioned oil.

                To me it seems incredibly naive to assume that there will be any sort of blanket ban on the use of any fossil fuel just for environmental reasons. First off it would take a unified world government to implement such a ban.

                Second it would require that in order to get any government to accept it the people of that country would have to know they have alternative sources of energy ready to go in sufficient quantity and on a round the clock round the calendar basis.

                Hence I personally see this sort of ” leave them in the ground ” argument as a non starter.

                I believe renewables and keeping the pedal to the metal on both research and deployment of all sorts of renewables but renewables in my opinion just aren’t going to scale up in time to keep most of the world from burning every speck of fossil fuel that can be had for sweat money or blood.

                Maybe – just maybe a few countries will manage a transition over a long period of time to a truly renewables based economy. The dregs of the fossil fuels are going to last a long time once overshoot gets rid of most of us and the remainder start seriously working on efficiency and conservation.

                A high carbon tax could go a long way towards slowing down environmental destruction and help ensure that the business as usual economy hangs in there a little longer maybe a decade or two longer. That much time will allow the renewables industries to grow a hell of a lot and we will be in a much better spot when the shit hits the fan and we finally see that we have no choice but to go flat out on renewables, conservation, and adaptation.

                Doomers don’t want to talk much about adaptation but we do have the ability to cut back our use of fossil fuels by a substantial amount in just a few years while silmantaneously getting a lot more energy from renewable sources.

                1. The pope offers hope. He is emphasizing that global warming is an ETHICAL issue. That will have lots more push behind it than science ever could. People understand ethics as a motive far more easily than science.

                   Around here, I see a lot of noise to that point by the various churches, etc. The local quakers are real forceful about it. They even allowed me to give a pitch for alternatives, something they tended to dodge until recently since some of the weighty elders spend a lot of time in the air.

                   BTW, in quaker, weighty means influential , not beefy.

                2. A carbon tax can’t happen because the whole country would fall apart from the BILLIONS that would be stolen from the people who actually work for a living an dont mooch off the gov’t with welfare. For the life of me I cant believe some people actually believe they can succeed in depriving us of our prosperity by paying a bogus tax? Get real, start thinking God’s way an relax about the left-wing idiots who believe so much in global warming that they are legally insane. Remember, if we put God first in our lives He will deal with the global warming. Jer 17:5 Thus says the LORD,” Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength, and whose heart turns away from the LORD
                   1 John 4:4 You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.
                   Luke 18:27 But He said, “The things that are impossible with people are possible with God.”
                   2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by MY name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked (rejection of God’s) ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

                3. “People who dismiss the unemployed and dependent as ‘parasites’ fail to understand economics and parasitism. A successful parasite is one that is not recognized by its host, one that can make its host work for it without appearing as a burden. Such is the ruling class in a capitalistic society.” ~ Jason Read

                   Oh, wait… incoming message… It’s God!…
                   Please standby…

                   It says… “Please forgive Henry.”

13. Reported on Canadian news: U.S. oil capacity will be fully used by April. As Canada has NO capacity to store oil (such as a ‘reserve’ as in the U.S.), where will all of it go? How will this affect production by any entity? How will this affect price, since the glut gets higher every month for some time to come?

    1. I would expect the Obama administration to allow light crude exports. But Obama seems to have some odd behavior areas, like most U.S. presidents. I voted for him, but i don’t agree with his moves half the time. I just need to become some sort of senior White House Svengali.

       1. Fern Wrote:
          “I would expect the Obama administration to allow light crude exports. But Obama seems to have some odd behavior areas, like most U.S. presidents.”

          I very much doubt this. I am pretty sure Obama would prefer to let the drillers get crushed since their work is counter-productive to the environmentalist seeking to end fossil fuel use.

          1. Both Tech and Fernando have a good theory here but neither holds water. The export ban has not even been considered by the White House because it is still all wrapped up in congress. Congress is the holdup in allowing exports.

             Oil lobby sets sights on export ban

             Oil companies have focused on pushing Congress to allow oil exports recently, arguing that it is the next logical policy step in response to the recent boom in domestic oil production.

             The United States became the world’s largest producer of oil last year, thanks in part to unconventional drilling techniques like hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. But unrefined petroleum products still cannot be shipped overseas.

             But many Democrats and some Republicans aren’t on board, and argue that oil exports could increase costs in the United States for consumers and industries that rely on petroleum.

             1. Ron, I think it’s easy to pseudo process condensate into an exportable stream. I bet I can modify an old lean oil pipe still gas plant to make an exportable condensate (I was trained as a plant engineer in the 1970’s and was running lean oil plant Chemshare simulations).

             2. Ron Wrote:
                “Both Tech and Fernando have a good theory here but neither holds water. The export ban has not even been considered by the White House because it is still all wrapped up in congress. Congress is the holdup in allowing exports.”

                The O-Man would veto it if it eventually makes its way to his desk, just as he did with the Keystone Pipeline bill.

                1. You can read the President’s mind? The Russians would love to recruit you as an agent. You could give them daily feeds on what the president is thinking.

                2. “You can read the President’s mind? The Russians would love to recruit you as an agent. You could give them daily feeds on what the president is thinking.”

                   Indeed, I can! Right now he is focusing on a put on the 5th hole. 🙂

                3. Like I mentioned, I can rig up old surplus equipment from lean oil process plants, and make an exportable product. The process will yield NGL, and a very expensive export product refineries in other countries will buy. The USA rules are a joke, it’s easy to get around it as long as the bureaucracy doesn’t abuse it’s power.

14. Latest post on my website:

    3/3/2015
    IEA report: US shale oil growth practically zero in 2017
    http://crudeoilpeak.info/iea-report-us-shale-oil-growth-practically-zero-in-2017

15. Hello All, While not on topic concerning termites I found an article on the demand side of the current “over supply”? narrative. Most of the graphs appear to be EIA but it was not apparent what other sources were cited as I could only “skin” it quickly due to juggling elderly stuff, new born puppies and supper. Read and debate or argue as the case requires. Here’s the link http://econimica.blogspot.com/2015/02/fundamentally-flawed-chapter-9-oil.html

    Best regards, Philip

    1. It has some errors.

16. Looks like American Eagle Energy is in the running to be the first Bakken driller to go bankrupt. They announced that they have been unable to make a $9.8 million interest payment due yesterday. The stock tanked 37% today to close at $0.37 (price per share been below $1 since November, but was as high as $11 in 2013). The company operates only in far northwestern Divide County, which helps explain some things. The acreage there just isn’t very good.

    On a more positive note, I think their logo is pretty neat.

    

    1. Hate to see that. Any guesses as to others who could be in trouble? HK seems to have mucho debt for a company their size. Although debt per flowing BOE is far from perfect, I think you will find HK has about the highest among all these debt laden companies. The page after page of debt discussion in their 10K gave me a headache.

       SD is another one that is in huge trouble. They are paying preferred dividends in common stock instead of cash. You can find some of their Mississippian wells on the Kansas state website. A lot of multi million dollar wells producing under 10 barrels of oil per day, but a lot of water. Ouch!

       If I knew price wouldn’t go much lower, and if I didn’t feel bad for all of the employees of these companies, I think I would be for a couple years of $50 WTI. I know that sounds nuts, and probably is. $50 WTI through the end of next year would really do some damage.

       1. Halcon for sure, yes. Their debt is eye-popping given the company’s size.

          I’m still wondering how Oasis manages to get by if current prices persist for a few more quarters, once their significant hedging activity can no longer help them.

          Abraxas (AXAS) is another company I’m interested in watching at current pricing. Not so much for their financials, because they didn’t look too bad through the end of the 3rd quarter of 2014, but because, at current pricing, their assets essentially come down to four 1280 acre Bakken drilling units on which they already have drilled 28 wells. I’m really curious how long they’re going to be able to live off of such a small amount of acreage, particularly when they have committed one rig on this acreage all this year to drill more and more wells ever close together. Of course, eventually they’re going to run out of room to stuff economic wells into this acreage. What happens if the room runs out while prices are still low, and they can’t look elsewhere for economic drilling options?

          1. One thing to note about American Eagle, they have $175 million of long term debt to production in the last reported quarter of around 2,100 BOE per day.

             That is about $83,000 of long term debt to flowing barrel. Although this is a far from perfect way to value these companies, given differences in production mixes and locations, as well as the fact that individual well profitability can vary widely, I think this is a useful metric in viewing these entities.

             Wish I had time to do a comparison. Maybe someone would be interested in doing this now that about all the 10K are out.

             1. Debt to PV10 may be a better way to go about it.

17. Heh Guys,

    A special thanks from my wife (and me) for the input on Obama’s Keystone veto. Can’t really say it’s crystal clear now but at least we can now understand some of the complexity (and differences of opinion) involved. Wife also asked me to compliment you all on the forum in general: No, I’m not going to sabotage her sunny view of Ron’s Blog by mentioning the odd troll (and sub-moron) who surfaces occasionally.

18. surely these numbers are wrong?

    “In 2011, a paper in Geophysical Research Letters tallied up the total warming data from land, air, ice, and the oceans. In 2012, the lead author of that study, oceanographer John Church, updated his research. What Church found was shocking: in recent decades, climate change has been adding on average around 125 trillion Joules of heat energy to the oceans per second. ”

    http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/we-may-see-a-supercharged-surge-in-warming

    1. I don’t think it is news among people who are keeping up that just about all the heat energy accumulating for the last decade plus has been going into the oceans. This explains of course why atmospheric temperature measurements have been relatively flat instead of steadily increasing thus giving the anti forced change crowd a substantial amount of ammunition.

       The real question is how long it will be before this extra heat in the upper few hundred feet of ocean waters gets cycled into the atmosphere.

       I don’t think anybody REALLY knows but my guess is that it is going to happen within the relatively near future and that it is happening already. Thus we have a string of hot years but not a steadily increasing temperature trend over the last decade or so.

       Ordinarily given the way things work in the natural world and in probability we should not expect to get ten or twelve ” hot” years in a row. There should be at least two or three cool years in the mix and if the process were truly random anywhere from about four or five to sever or eight COOL years.

       Ten or twelve hot years in a row is very strong evidence in and of itself of a warming trend. When I ask somebody who doubts forced warming where the cool years are -assuming they know a little about statistics and probability – it usually pulls them up short.

       The odds seem to be rather high that at some point in the relatively near future some of that EXCESS heat in ocean waters is going to find its way into the atmosphere and when it does the average global temperature is going to start climbing pretty fast.

       I am very glad our place is well to the north of the American subtropic zone and a couple of thousand feet up. It gets hot enough here every summer already. Just a three degree rise C would wipe out our local orchard industries but we might be able to raise semitropical fruits instead of our staple apples and peaches.

       Forty plus years ago when I was first down around Richmond and learning to fish the James River with a local man who turned out to eventually be the best friend I had back then he told me about the river changing during his lifetime.

       When he was a kid he hardly ever caught a catfish above the fall line. By the seventies we were catching half and half catfish and bass. The James is still a great smallmouth river farther up but it is getting noticeably warmer decade after decade.

       Now you hardly ever catch a small mouth in the tidal river but largemouth are quite common and the catfish are bigger than ever. Fifty pounders are common it the tidal river these days. The oysters are almost gone. Too much fertilizer and sewage.

       This guy incidentally was a fully qualified biologist who took up teaching but soon left the field as I did myself. He had a lot to do with my early environmental education.

       1. Mac, here’s a graph from real climate dot org showing the energy content anomaly they like:

          

       2. As it turns out the claim being made is that energy is being transferred to deeper layers below 700 meters. Those deeper layers are extremely cold and have enormous heat capacity. Here’s a cross section of the Atlantic posted by Eunice at Judy’s blog:

          

       3. What did I post these charts? Simply to show that the deep ocean won’t be returning heat back to the surface. Sudden warming periods such as we are experiencing in 2014 to 2015 are associated with warm water transfers from the Tropical Pacific off Papua New Guinea to the Pacific off Ecuador and Peru. This warm water spreads at the surface, and transfers a huge amount of heat to the atmosphere. This energy transfer can reach extreme conditions, at which time it is named El Niño.

          What I have noticed is that energy transfers in the tropics are the main engine driving global warming, and the hot zone just to the east Papúa is the main energy absorber (possibly because the air is very humid? ).

          1. Hi Fernando,

             So you think a warmer deep ocean will not effect the transfer of heat from the upper ocean? Very interesting, I am pretty sure you have the thermodynamics wrong. There are some basic laws here, generally we assume there is conservation of energy. What happens to the heat transferred to the deep ocean?

             One would expect that the ocean will warm up as heat is added.

             1. Hi Dennis,

                I guess I actually have less to do than just about anybody commenting here and too much time on my hands being stuck in the house mostly.

                Fernando is right IF depending on the assumptions used as baselines. These assumptions may or may not hold.

                One is that the excess heat going into the surface waters WILL OR IS actually winding up in deep water ( as in thousands of feet deep). The deep waters of the worlds oceans are at damned near freezing temperature just about every where except within a few feet of volcanic vents.

                If the heat winds up in the really deep waters and is well distributed then the fossil fuel age will be long past before the waters warm up more than a fraction of a degree IIRC.

                The other assumption is that is in just about every discussion involving climate environment etc the time frame must be specified in order to understand the arguments.

                When Fernando says the heat will not be coming back up I SUPPOSE he means it won’t be coming back up on any time scale than matters to the fossil fuel warming debate.

                For my part I understand the physics well enough to understand his arguments and they have been vetted by some serious physicists as far as that goes.

                But I do not believe the excess heat is necessarily going to wind up in the very deep waters and stay there for the next thousand years.

                I think the heat is going to mostly stay in the near surface waters meaning the top thousand feet or less. I DO NOT KNOW.

                In any event the turnover of the deep waters round trip to the surface and back to the depths takes a VERY long time.

                I don’t see the mechanism for the heat to wind up in the bottom waters on a meaningful time scale ( decades to centuries) nor for it to get back to the surface afterward.

                My own understanding of ocean water circulation is only that of a layman with the very most basic understanding of the physics involved.

                Fernando might be right. Maybe the heat – enough of it at least- is winding up in deep water to substantially slow the rate of atmospheric warming.

                I will take this opportunity to remind Futilista that he has overlooked a couple of opportunities to label me a climate denier and that I miss his loving attention. . I am getting fond of his insults.

                I have consistently posted my opinion for a long time that I expect warming to continue and that it is a GRAVE (pun ha ha ) matter.

                1. Mac, I’m not the one saying the heat is being transferred into deeper water. The “establishment” seems to think so. As I stated earlier I used the data to estimate the energy surplus and I’m in close agreement with Hansen.

                   If the data is right (there’s some uncertainty regarding the temperature change in deep water), then the energy is being transferred into deeper water (below 700 meters).

                   Evidently energy moved into 5 degree C deep water is allowing the surface to warm up at a much slower rate. That energy has an adverse effect, it increases sea level a little bit (water swells when it warms up). But the effect is so subtle it’s hard to see sea level change accelerating at this time.

                   I believe the recent slowdown in surface warming rate may be caused in part by such energy transfers, and possibly a change in cloud formation. What bugs me is the way we see so little funding to obtain key data. The agencies seem to be taken over by people driven by pure politics, we see a lot of climate change hysteria but the concern isn’t matched by the proper amount of data acquisition.

                   Don’t forget I used to work in a team gathering data in the Arctic to see if we could develop fields in the ice, and I’m familiar with data needs rich governments don’t care to fund.

             2. Dennis: here’s Mac’s comment:

                “The odds seem to be rather high that at some point in the relatively near future some of that EXCESS heat in ocean waters is going to find its way into the atmosphere and when it does the average global temperature is going…”

                If you read carefully both his statement and my response, you will see that you wrote a surplus statement.

                If you want to discuss heat transfer and ocean circulation please feel free to do so. But it may be a bit off topic for this blog. I discussed it because I like Mac and I don’t want him to spend sleepless nights worrying about a surge of heat from very deep water.

                1. Hi Fernando,

                   It seemed that you were saying that a transfer of heat to the deep ocean would not matter, I guess I misunderstood. Clearly there will be some transfer of heat to deeper waters and they will warm to some extent. This will tend to reduce the amount of heat transferred for any given ocean surface temperature.

                   I agree we need better measurements for ocean temperatures at different depths.

                   Often people do not realize how long CO2 will remain elevated even when we stop burning fossil fuels. Chart below shows CO2 with 750 Gt, 100 Gt, and 1200 Gt of carbon emissions (including fossil fuels, cement production and land use change). Vertical axis is ppm CO2 and horizontal axis is year. Ocean turns over in roughly 1000 years. The excess heat will continue to be added to ocean over the next 1000 years and the ocean will continue to warm. Note that 1000 to 1200 Gt of emissions are reasonable, anything less is unlikely.

                   

             3. Dennis, Fernando and Mac,

                According to Oceanographer Jeremy Jackson in the video Jeremy Jackson: Ocean Apocalypse it takes 1,000 years for water to circulate from the deep ocean to the surface and vice versa. However ocean warming near the poles is slowing this process because the warmer water does not sink as fast.

                It is only the surface water that is warming, not the deep ocean. I assume none of you watched this video else you would not be arguing this point.

                1. Hi Ron,

                   I watched it a long time before it was first mentioned here in the current discussion. . In fact I think I linked to it here a good while back.

                   I have respect for Jackson but he is painting fast with a wide brush in this video and there IS a possibility the heat is in substantial part winding up in deep water.

                   I have been trying ( without luck ) to get somebody with influence enough to get an interview with a ranking politician to ask about the Navy releasing the data in scrubbed form that has without a doubt been collected over the last few decades by nuclear subs.

                   I know they don’t generally go below a thousand feet but they have super sophisticated sensors and have probably recorded ambient water temperatures to hundredth of a degree every minute wherever they have been for the last fifty years or so and maybe longer.

                   This data would tell us a lot.

                   I do in fact believe that warming is going to continue in fits and spurts and that it will get to be a GRAVE problem no pun intended within the next few decades probably.

                   BUT I am not so sure of myself that I am going to insist that there may not be some mitigating factors coming into play.

                   A long time ago I learned it is best to never say never. Sometimes I forget but not very often.

                2. I have respect for Jackson but he is painting fast with a wide brush in this video and there IS a possibility the heat is in substantial part winding up in deep water.

                   Jackson says it takes a thousand years for the ocean to turn over. But the heating of the water at the poles causes increased ocean stratification. Normally water rises from the deep ocean at the equator and sinks at the poles. And this process takes, on average, one thousand years to turn over. But the heating of the water at the poles means the water sinks more slowly. That is what Jackson was talking about, in fact that is what he said. Quoting Dr. Jackson:

                   Let’s dwell on this. Increased ocean stratification. The ocean moves, right. And it turns over but it turn over very slowly. It takes a thousand years for the ocean to turn over. But how fast are we warming the surface of the ocean? We’re warming it really really fast. And we are warming it so fast that virtually none of that heat has a chance to be brought downward into the deeper ocean. Warmer water is lighter water. Which means it’s even harder to downwell.

                   But your complaint is this is painting with too broad a brush. And you say that, in spite of what Dr. Jackson is saying, that it is possible that a substantial part of the ocean heat is winding up in the deep ocean.

                   Okay, you can argue with a man who holds a PhD in oceanography if you like but I think I will take his word for it. And if you listened far enough into the video you heard him say these things are not just what the scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography found out but also the scientist at Woods Hole found the same thing.

                   So argue with all those PhDs if you like but I wouldn’t dare.

                   Note: All this about increased ocean stratification begins at about 41:00 into the video, or shortly thereafter.

                3. Ron I haven’t actually disputed Jackson if you reread my comments. I SAID I don’t see the ocean circulation acting in the way Fernando discussed. I said it doesn’t seem likely to me.

                   I suppose I should have said I believe Jackson is right about the rate of heat exchange and turnover. In fact I do so believe.

                   But he ain’t god and there are other people as evidenced by Fernandos links who also have professional qualifications who tell us the heat may indeed be going deep.

                   Fernando understands the very slow turnover as well. So he says if the heat goes deep it won’t matter- and it won’t in terms of the climate debate. It won’t get back to the surface for centuries after the fossil fuel age is over.

                   But putting the heat IN at the DOWN end of a thousand year circulation MAY BE HAPPENING IN THE SHORT TERM. If so it would slow warming in the short term. This might actually be happening and it might be part of the explanation for the last few years of relatively flat temperatures.

                   I am not actually saying this is happening but I am willing to consider the possibility that it MIGHT be happening.

                   I had professors with doctorates as an undergrad who held diametrically opposed views on some pretty serious subjects.

                4. Mac, you are mistaken when you imply that other oceanographers disagree with Jackson. “Others” may disagree but not oceanographers . They are all in agreement because they know how ocean circulation works. So-called “others” do not.

                   Nothing Fernando posted indicates that heat is going very deep very fast. It simply is not. Of course water in the Pacific 1000 meters down will still be warmer than water 5000 meters down. After all in 1000 years some heat will be thermally transferred. But that is something that happens extremely slow. That water circulates in surface currents, not in vertical currents.

                   No, heat is simply not being transferred to the deep ocean at any rate that will slow global warming in any significant manner.

                   Antarctic sea ice explained:
                   Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum

                5. Ron, please refer to the graph below (I’m reposting it). Take note of the change in slope in the energy uptake curve.

                   the slope change is caused by either 1. Energy transfer below 700 meters, and/or 2. Reduced heat uptake.

                   There’s no clear way to distinguish between the two unless you use the heat uptake for water below 700 meters. As it turns out there are some measurements and reanalysis which indicates that deep layer is warming an itty teensy bit. For example chech Balmaseda et al. Dr. Wunsch feels Balmaseda has flaws, but it points in that direction. I’m a bit surprised at your skepticism about what appears to be a traightforward process.

                6. I have heard that, perhaps in part given increased ocean-temperature stratification, there may be many potentially-devastating knock-on effects like ocean currents changing. Apparently, ocean currents, like the Gulf Stream, are very important to weather patterns and local climates, as well of course to ocean life in a myriad of ways.

                7. The famous plot

                   

                8. “The famous plot”

                   Would that be a murder plot?

                9. Please refer to this map showing sea ice concentration and water tempeature anomaly

                   http://www.cawcr.gov.au/staff/preid/sst/reynolds_antarctic.html

                   The Antarctic is starting to show a trend somewhat opposite to what’s postulated in the Jackson video. We are observing cooler water and increasing sea ice cover. This is really good news if it holds, because it increases albedo and speeds up ocean circulation.

    2. Are We Entering a New Period of Rapid Global Warming?

       By: Bob Henson, Wunderblog, 5:04 PM GMT on February 24, 2015

       Residents of New England may understandably look back at 2015 as the year of their never-ending winter. For the planet as a whole, though, this year could stand out most for putting to rest the “hiatus”— the 15-year slowdown in atmospheric warming that gained intense scrutiny by pundits, scientists, and the public. While interesting in its own right, the hiatus garnered far more attention than it deserved as a purported sign that future global warming would be much less than expected. The slowdown was preceded by almost 20 years of dramatic global temperature rise, and with 2014 having set a new global record high, there are signs that another decade-plus period of intensified atmospheric warming may be at our doorstep.

       The most compelling argument for a renewed surge in global air temperature is rooted in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). This index tracks the fingerprint of sea surface temperature (SST) across the Pacific north of 20°N. A closely related index, the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), covers a larger swath of the entire Pacific. Both the PDO and IPO capture back-and-forth swings in the geography of Pacific SSTs that affect the exchange of heat between ocean and atmosphere (see Figure 1). We’ll use PDO as shorthand for both indexes in the following discussion.

       Figure 4. When looking at global temperature over a full PDO cycle (1970s to 2010s), the overall rise becomes evident, despite the flattening observed in the last 15 years. Image credit: NOAA.

       

       1. Isn’t it great how computer graphics can be changed to have the right visual impact?

          

          1. “Isn’t it great how computer graphics can be changed to have the right visual impact?”
             ~Fernando Leanme

             Spoken like a true propagandist.

          2. Somebody changed my graphic?

             

19. Start at about 6:50. These data have been known for sometime. I have pointed these facts out using my Dixie Cup analogy a number of times.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change?language=en

    Best,
    Tom

    1. Hi Cave Bio.

       Thank you for posting this. It is very important for people to realize how dangerous the situation actually is. And to realize that denial just makes it worse. It is time to end the DENIAL.

    2. thanks Tom. I have seen this talk before but the numbers really didn’t register. They do now.

       Also, I initially didn’t really recognize the Motherboard article’s author. It is Nafeez Ahmed, someone I really respect.

       “What Church found was shocking: in recent decades, climate change has been adding on average around 125 trillion Joules of heat energy to the oceans per second.

       How to convey this extraordinary fact? His team came up with an analogy: it was roughly the same amount of energy that would be released by the detonation of two atomic bombs the size dropped on Hiroshima. In other words, these scientists found that anthropogenic climate is warming the oceans at a rate equivalent to around two Hiroshima bombs per second. But as new data came in, the situation has looked worse: over the last 17 years, the rate of warming has doubled to about four bombs per second. In 2013, the rate of warming tripled to become equivalent to 12 Hiroshima bombs every second.

       So not only is warming intensifying, it is also accelerating. By burning fossil fuels, humans are effectively detonating 378 million atomic bombs in the oceans each year.”

       378 million atomic bombs in the oceans each year

       1. Could somebody explain the point of even spending the (taxpayer) money on this kind of “research”? Other than an interesting academic discussion and political fodder what, exactly, is the point? There is nothing we can do about climate change and the some of the steps that might help, like nuclear and population control, are never even discussed.

          The EIA projects world energy consumption will increase 56% by 2040 with that increase coming almost exclusively from non-OECD nations and will be fueled primarily by coal and exclusively by fossil. We can’t even contain the rise in annual emission rates let alone decrease them.

          If only the USA stopped fossil fuel consumption tomorrow, the impact on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) modestly-educated 3.0°C temperature rise by 2100 is: 0.052°C by 2050 and 0.137°C by 2100, or a rounding error.

          Let me repeat, if all fossil fuel use in the United States stopped tomorrow, it would make no impact on climate change in the year 2100.

          So somebody please tell me how we hope to reverse over a century’s worth of building global economies on the back of fossil fuels when the only suitable green energy source, nuclear, is out of favor with the very crowd screaming we need to do something?

          Solar and wind lack storage and nothing on the horizon says that will change anytime soon, and carbon sequestration has never been done on a commercial scale. The “solutions” we have been shown are the equivalent of a bucket brigade on the Titanic. What we’re going to have to do is adapt, with sunscreen, life jackets and real estate at higher elevations. That, and allow the private sector do what it does best, come up with the technology and solutions to allow us to improve our lives.

          1. You’re obfuscating.

       2. It is stunning Mike.

          BTW, in a recent talk Hansen noted the increase in the energy imbalance. Start at about 24:30.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnM0V5aEXyA

          “at a rate of 0.75 watts/meter squared….the equivalent of exploding 500,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day, 365 days per year.”

          Best,
          Tom

    3. Great talk indeed.

    4. No big news in that talk. Hansen is big into politics, puts a lot of extra fluff in the talk.

       The only useful number I get out of his talk is his estimated 0.6 watts per m2. I estimated a top range of 0.57 watts per m2 using the Lyman and Johnson data. So we are in rough agreement.

       The key to understanding Hansen is that he’s an idiot when it comes to politics and engineering. He’s on a bandwagon to cut concentration to 350 ppm. Well, it’s already 400 ppm, and we are doing ok. And I don’t see any proof that an extra degree C is really that harmful.

       Whenever I roll this in my head I return to peak oil and gas as a much more serious problem, and geoengineering as a potential palliative we can use until we develop some sort of useful energy alternative.

       1. Dude, have you heard of abrupt climate change? Or inertia? There is evidence of abrupt climate change happening in the paleoclimate record, within decades. How can you discount this possibility out of hand?

          And are we really doing ok at 1 degree C? What if these high ridging patterns in the jet stream that are inflicting the droughts in the west and Brazil are the new normal? Everything is OK… you sure about that?

          I seriously hope you are right, but so many other reports I have seen from climate scientists suggest the opposite. I guess they are all just “idiots” like Hansen.

          1. Chilly, assume I’ve been around the block. It will help you avoid running into a useless debate. If you wish to discuss “abrupt climate change” you do need to be specific about the mechanisms or feedbacks you envision.

             Regarding a 1 degree C increase over today’s level, you do need to identify why you think it’s so bad. And please, no arm waving. And no quotes from Common dreams or Amy Goodman. Why don’t you try backing your comments with say the IPCC AR5?

             1. Alright bro. I don’t have the time to engage in a useless debate right now. We can revisit this discussion down the road.

             2. “Chilly, assume I’ve been around the block. It will help you avoid running into a useless debate. If you wish to discuss “abrupt climate change” you do need to be specific about the mechanisms or feedbacks you envision.”

                Note how Fernando suggests that the best way to avoid a useless debate is to have one with him!

                This is the deceptive tactic that DENIERS love to use. It comes right out of their DENIER handbook. Don’t fall for it. Chilyb didn’t.

       2. The key to understanding Hansen is that he’s an idiot when it comes to politics and engineering.
          Hansen admits that it may be impossible to change the longer we wait. The fact that he cannot move big business and government all by himself does not make him an idiot- it makes you disingenuous for suggesting that lack of change is more likely a flaw in his argument than in the power of the forces against him.
          Well, it’s already 400 ppm, and we are doing ok. And I don’t see any proof that an extra degree C is really that harmful.
          Fernando, I know you understand statistics: the timescales in the graphs he shows suggest more problems to come over a period of decades. Your reliance on a pointless anecdote essentially saying that “we’re not dead yet, so he must be wrong” shows that you are intellectually bankrupt on the topic, and that your thoughts are worth nothing.

          Denier.
          -Lloyd

          1. Hi Lloyd.

             Right on.

    5. Interesting quote from the talk: “I fear that we will start a process that is out of humanity’s control” [the melting of the ice sheets and rising sea levels].

       True, but we’ve never had control. We’re altering our environment as many species before us have (right back to cyanobacteria). The extinctions we’re witnessing is old hat: it’s called natural selection.

       Let’s just hope our ability to adapt in real time keeps us ahead of the game.

       1. I have a lot of hope we’ll eventually develop a really competitive energy source. Or let’s just say I pray for it? I’m also hopeful we can do geoengineering to help reduce the CO2 dissolved in the ocean. I have a really funky idea I sure wish I could try in an experimental mode.

          1. Hi Fernando,

             I mentioned the company below in the last post. It is a new company with only a pilot demonstration project right now–but one that is working and producing electricity. Ron completely dismissed it; however, I see real potential here. If you look at it carefully, their technology appears to be all off the shelf and they claim to be able to produce energy cost competitive to fossil fuels. This is the type of base-load renewable energy that could be scaled very quickly.

             http://www.bren-energy.com/

             But I also want to remind everyone here of a basic biological fact. The solar energy conversion of plants to biomass is between 1-3%. Scientists have shown that the energy conversion of solar to hydrogen gas by off the shelf photovoltaic panels is approximately 10%:

             http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/plants-versus-photovoltaics-at-capturing-sunlight/

             So, a group of 18 biologists, chemists and physicists set out to answer the question by first creating roughly equivalent systems—comparing apples with apples, as it were rather than apples with oranges. Photosynthesis (conducted by algae) turns roughly 3 percent of incoming sunlight into organic compounds, including yet more plant cells, annually. “Artificial photosynthesis”—comprising a PV cell that provides the electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen—turns roughly 10 percent of incoming sunlight into usable hydrogen annually.

             So off the shelf PV is 3 to 10 times more efficient than plants at creating a stored energy source. I will repeat here what I have said many times–we have the technology to make the transition right now. The issue is not technological, it is political, economic, social. Thus solving our issues is much more complicated than any of us could imagine.

             This is why I don’t think peak oil etc. is the problem it is the solution. We need to begin the transformation now. We have the technology–we simply need the kick in the ass.

             Best,
             Tom

             1. Cave, I didn’t dismiss it as a potential for electrical generation or the potential for making a lot of money for its investors. I dismissed as a potential for replacing all fossil fuels for generating electricity. It is not going to do that and I believe that was what you were suggesting.

                1. It’s tough for anything to compete with cheap, dirty coal.

                   Wind is cheaper than new US coal because new US coal has to scrub out mercury, sulfur, etc. But China doesn’t seem to care enough about their 100s of thousands of air-pollution deaths per year to limit coal.

                   They care enough to build wind as fast as possible, but not enough to limit coal while wind is ramping up.

                2. Hi Nick,

                   Given the cards on the table I doubt the Chinese leadership believes it has any real choice in the matter of building coal plants.

                   It is my understanding that most of the people at or near the top in China have good technical educations in comparison to say the USA so they probably do understand the climate issue.

                   But for now- they first of all want to stay in power and second raise the living standard of their country.

                   If they can manage that then I guess they will be happy to turn their attention to doing something about the climate and environment next.

                   There just aren’t any easy solutions.

                3. Not to mention all of the surplus young men who can’t find wives and who have to be kept employed lest they start a revolution…

                4. Mac, they understand the “climate issue” as they get it from their own scientists. The Chinese appear to use cooler climate models, and don’t sem to be so worried about a 2 degree C limit set by European politicians.

                5. I’ve never seen anything to support this.

                   Do you have a link to a source that supports it?

                6. Sure, start reading climatology papers written by chinese scientists. Also go to the berkeley earth web pages and locate their model comparisons. The chinese models run cooler. The chinese models may be better, given the slow down in actual temperature increase versus what the “western” models predict.

                7. start reading climatology papers written by chinese scientists.

                   Seriously? That’s not an answer.

                   go to the berkeley earth web pages and locate their model comparisons.

                   I took a quick look, and didn’t see them. If you want your idea to be taken seriously, provide a link.

                   In the meantime, Berkeley Earth goes to great pains to say they *don’t* rely on models:

                   “A previous Berkeley Earth study, released in October 2011, found that the land-­‐surface temperature had risen by about 0.9 °C over the past 50 years (which was consistent with previous analyses) and directly addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics, including the urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias.

                   The Berkeley Earth team values the simplicity of its analysis, which does not depend on the large complex global climate models that have been criticized by climate skeptics for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. The conclusion that the warming is due to humans is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.”

                   http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-announcement-jul-29-12.pdf

                8. Try this
                   http://static.berkeleyearth.org/graphics/figure28.pdf

                   The Chinese output is in figure 28.

                9. Re: Fernando’s comment of March 6, 2015 at 3:42 pm:

                   This is all you’ve got?

                   One out of context graph to suggest that all Chinese climate scientists disagree with the general climate consensus?

                   Even for you, this is ridiculous.

                10. Ron,

                    I read here a lot that solar cannot replace fossil fuels because it is an intermittent energy source. I was trying to show that assumption to be false. I added the second fact above about the efficiency of PV to hydrogen relative to that of plants converting solar to chemicals to reinforce the fact that, if we so desire, we could begin the transition to a renewable energy source that could act as base load power immediately. We do not need any new technological breakthroughs.

                    I was careful to note that we do not need to replace all fossil fuel generation. Although I do argue we need to replace a significant fraction. I don’t see why that is not technically feasible–in fact, I think it could be done rather easily over the course of a few decades.

                    I think you and I agree that economic, political, and social issues are serious impediments to begin and successfully complete this transition. I guess where we disagree is that you seem to think there is no technological solution currently at hand.

                    BTW, relative to the company I keep mentioning, one of the reasons it intrigues me is that the CEO, Avi Brenmiller, appears to be using his own money. No investors to get rich here, although if they ever go public, I will be buying stocks hand over fist. He has been in the solar thermal business for decades, and ran a company that was purchased by Siemens. Look at their schematics carefully. This looks like game changing technology because it is simple, modular, and uses off the shelf technology to produce the electricity. This could be scaled up very, very quickly.

                    Best,
                    Tom

                11. I read here a lot that solar cannot replace fossil fuels because it is an intermittent energy source. I was trying to show that assumption to be false.

                    That is but one of the reasons. After all, there are places in the Northern States where the sun doesn’t shine for days, sometimes weeks at a time. And when it does come out it is for only a few hours. The system you showed may work great in Arizona or even Florida, but it would be a total loser in Maine or Washington.

                    And hey, I am all for starting the transition to solar or wind right now. But it is not happening and is not likely to happen any time soon. It is all well an good to talk about what could be done, but it is only what will be done that counts.

                    I guess where we disagree is that you seem to think there is no technological solution currently at hand.

                    I agree with that statement. We can produce some electricity with solar or wind but we can never produce enough to completely replace fossil fuel, even if we try to phase it in over twenty or thirty years.

                    Grid power would have to be multiplied at least twice if we put our fleet of cars and trucks on it. And running that kind of grid on renewables? That is not going to happen.

                    But hey, I wish you all the luck in the world with your solar investments, and I suspect they will pay off. I would even invest myself but I am past the age of waiting for years for my investments to pay off. And I don’t have that much to invest anyway. But I will tell my oldest son about it, he is always looking for good investments.

                12. Grid power would have to be multiplied at least twice if we put our fleet of cars and trucks on it. And running that kind of grid on renewables? That is not going to happen.

                    Actually, it’s the reverse: the more EVs are charging on the grid, the more wind and solar it can handle.

                    Why? Because EVs can be charged when wind and solar are strong, and can even provide power to the grid when they’re weak. EVs buffer intermittency.

                    It’s also worth noting that the US wouldn’t need to double the grid to handle EVs: light vehicles travelled 2.9 trillion miles last year. At 3 miles per kWh, that’s about 1,000 terawatt hours, which adds up to about 25% of US generation.

                13. we can never produce enough to completely replace fossil fuel, even if we try to phase it in over twenty or thirty years.

                    So, the most basic objection you see is scalability? It looks to you like wind, solar and nuclear just couldn’t produce enough kWhs?

                14. Hi Nick.

                    The most basic problem you keep wanting to focus on is scalability. But scalability is really just a theoretical discussion that assumes a stable and growing economy.

                    Peak oil changes everything. You never factor in the effects of peak oil on the economy when you make your hopeful projections. We don’t have 20 years to make a useful transition. Or even 10.

                    The problem has to be seen holistically. Scalability means nothing without realistically factoring in the effects of peak oil.

                    Time and money are more basic problems than the theoretical scaleability of alternatives.

                15. That argument assumes the premise.

                    If oil can be replaced reasonably seamlessly, then Peak Oil won’t cause the economy to collapse.

                16. “If oil can be replaced reasonably seamlessly…

                    Yours is the argument that assumes the premise.

                    I assume we are at or near peak oil. I also assume that this will cause economic hardship. That seems very reasonable. It is from these premises that I am critiquing your contention that alternatives can seamlessly replace oil.

                    You need to show how a transition could happen given realistic assumptions (about the effects of peak oil on the economy) instead of just ignoring them.

                17. I also assume that this will cause economic hardship. That seems very reasonable

                    Sure, because many PO enthusiasts assume the same thing. But, there really isn’t a good basis for it.

                    For instance, Professor James Hamilton argues that an oil shock causes recession because people stop buying SUVs. But, this is temporary – if an oil shock persists, they’ll start buying more fuel efficient vehicles and car sales will rise again.

                    People assume that because oil shocks have contributed to recessions in the past, that they will in the future, and that a bigger oil shock will necessarily cause a bigger recession – but that doesn’t follow at all.

                18. “For instance, Professor James Hamilton argues that an oil shock causes recession because people stop buying SUVs. But, this is temporary – if an oil shock persists, they’ll start buying more fuel efficient vehicles and car sales will rise again.”

                    That is not what Hamilton argues at all. He argues that an oil shock causes a recession. The recession causes people to stop buying SUV’s. He does not say that lack of SUV sales causes a recession (it contributes to it).

                    Your model:

                    1) Oil shock, people stop buying SUV’s.

                    2) Recession.

                    3) Oil shock (and recession) persists.

                    4) People begin buying alternatives.

                    Do you see a problem here?

                    If people can’t afford SUV’s, they will not be able to afford alternatives either. If declining net energy causes a recession soon, we will not ever recover from it.

                    This is a peak oil website. Try to realistically factor peak oil into your seamless transition.

                19. Futilitist

                    “”If people can’t afford SUV’s, they will not be able to afford alternatives either.”

                    People could not afford new SUVs, but they could have affordedthe $12 to $20,000 small cars, but they chose not to.
                    They then complained the couldn’t afford the gas price for their old SUVs.
                    There was/is a path, but the US public have refused to take i.. I am sorry, I do not have too much sympathy for not having enough money to fill their SUV.
                    People have choices and have to live with the consequences.
                    They have a short break of low oil prices, so everyone is rushing the barriers to buy new SUVs before the price of fuel goes up. I find it hard to see the logic, but I am looking form the outside looking in.

                20. What’s the causal link between PO and recession/depression, and how strong is it?

                    One possibility: rising oil prices cause inflation, and that causes recession. This is a plausible argument: that PO would cause inflation, inflation would cause central banks to tighten credit, and tightened credit would cause recession.

                    But, that wasn’t the case from 2004-08. Inflation never rose about 4%, and core inflation rose much less. Interest rates rose at a modest rate on a historical basis, but not because of oil prices – the Federal Reserve made an explicit decision to not worry about the impact of oil prices on the general price level, assuming that they’d come back down eventually (as they partly have). The Fed plans to continue this policy.

                    So, what’s the causal link between PO and recession/depression?

                    James Hamilton showed one: that oil shocks caused fear, uncertainty and doubt among car buyers, who put off purchases, thus reducing overall capital investment, thus reducing aggregate demand, causing recession.

                    “…, the technological costs associated with trying to reallocate specialized labor or capital could result in a temporary period of unemployment as laid-off workers wait for demand for their sector to resume. Bresnahan and Ramey (1993), Hamilton (2009b), and Ramey and Vine (2010) demonstrated the economic importance of shifts in motor vehicle demand in the recessions that followed several historical oil shocks.”

                    page 26 http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~jhamilton/handbook_climate.pdf

                    The problem: this is a short term effect. If oil prices stay high, they’ll switch to buying more fuel efficient vehicles and car sales will rise again. Again, this is what we say from 2011 to 2014: oil prices stayed high, and yet car sales recovered to historically very high levels.

                    Other research at the St. Louis Fed, which I can show you if you want, shows that oil shocks only cause short term recessions.

                    So, what’s the causal link between PO and recession/depression?

                    Hamilton ascribes more importance to it than most, and he thinks that the 2004-08 oil shock (in which prices rose roughly 5x) shaved roughly 2% off of US GDP. That’s not TEOTWAWKI.

                21. You are looking for exact historical proof of the causes of various recessions in the past. That is not the point. Those recessions took place before the irreversible long term decline of world oil production. We know this will happen soon. When the world passes peak oil and depletion overtakes us, world economic growth will come to an end. Forever. (see Heinberg)

                    Find a way to make a seamless transition under the conditions I describe above.

                    Please don’t say that the above is not a realistic scenario. It is (and always has been) the most basic prediction of peak oil theory.

                    This is a peak oil website. To make a credible argument for a seamless transition to alternatives, you must actually factor in peak oil.

                22. Yes, this is a PO web site, and PO enthusiasts *assume* that PO will cause economic collapse. But, there’s really no good evidence for that.

                    To assess how our society can respond to these problems, we have to evaluate the various proposed solutions. The problem with Heinberg (and Hanson, Kunstler, et al)? They don’t understand wind and solar, and haven’t taken them seriously. They’ve just assumed that they aren’t adequate. Look through their writings and you don’t find an accurate, detailed analysis anywhere.

                    Heinberg’s treatment of wind and solar in “Powerdown” is relatively undetailed. “The Party’s Over” is a bit more thorough, with 4 and half pages devoted to wind, but there’s still no detailed, quantitative analysis. It has some numbers, but they’re oddly uneven, and ultimately it’s overall conclusions don’t follow. For instance, on page 152 he says: ” Current storage batteries are expensive, they are almost useless in very cold weather, and they need to be replaced after a few years of use.”

                    This is just unrealistic arm waving: as we’ve seen, EVs are cheaper than ICE’s.

                    His latest work is improving, he’s willing to admit that renewables “may” work just fine.

                    http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-01-21/our-renewable-future

                23. His latest is improving, but still only willing to admit that renewables “may” work just fine.

                    http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-01-21/our-renewable-future

                24. Hi Ron,

                    The average yearly insolation in Maine is about average for the US, it is low in winter and very high in summer, wind complements solar very well, it is quite windy in Maine in the winter. There are northern states which are very cloudy, but that is the Northwestern US, where solar is not a very good idea.

             2. Tom, many years ago my grandfather showed me an old magazine issued in early 1903 he kept in a leather bound collection. This magazine included an article by Simon Newcombe explaining why we would never fly in an object heavier than air.

                I’m hoping we’ll have a couple of engineers develop a fusion engine before everything goes to hell. But I don’t know how it’s going to be done.

                1. Hi Fernando,

                   Fusion would be great–but of course, we already have it. It is called the sun. 😉

                   Best,
                   Tom

             3. Great tech to put on barges and move where needed on any appropriate sea coast. My solar favorite is the Red Sea. Would be a real winner there.

       2. Have you seen Christophe McGlade’s article in Nature?

          Here’s a discussion of it:

          http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/08/3609408/coal-tar-sands-stay-in-the-ground-to-avoid-catastrophe/

          Here’s a quote: “Our results suggest that, globally, a third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves, and over 80 percent of current coal reserves should remain unused from 2010 to 2050 in order to meet the target of 2°C,” write authors Christophe McGlade and Paul Ekins of University College London.”

          1. My research shows people will lose an enormous amount of weight on a lettuce and boiled okra diet. And then they die.

             1. Interesting sense of humor.

                I’ve done quite a bit of research on denier psychology. My research suggests you might be suffering from moral schizophrenia.

                Here is a link to the latest research:

                http://peakoilbarrel.com/us-rig-count-location/comment-page-1/#comment-502422

                1. And here’s a link to the Homeland Security measures

                   http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/2014/10/how-to-survive-climate-zombie-threat.html

                2. Oh you poor persecuted denier! The times they are a changing. Fast. You had better duck and cover.

20. Nabors cuts 3,500 jobs

    http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/03/03/nabors-cuts-nearly-3500-jobs-as-u-s-drilling-takes-hit/

    HOUSTON – Nabors Industries has cut 12 percent of its 29,000-employee workforce as oil producers continue to send U.S. land rigs to the sidelines, the drilling contractor’s CEO said Tuesday.

    That includes a 10-percent cut from its sales staff and a 20-percent reduction in its U.S. drilling workforce, or about 3,480 jobs, Nabors CEO Anthony Petrello told investors said in a quarterly conference call, adding the firm is preparing for the possibility of a long-term downturn in oil prices.

    “We are not counting on the ‘V,’” Petrello said, referring to a potential V-shaped — or rapid — recovery in oil prices that would alleviate much of the industry’s ongoing pain in lost profits and jobs. Nabors has slashed its capital budget 50 percent to about $1 billion. It has targeted a 15-percent cut in operating costs this year.

    The Bermuda-based driller, which has its main offices in Houston, saw average utilization for its U.S. rigs fall to 78 percent in the fourth quarter. It took $408 million in asset impairments in the United States. Nabors’ active U.S. rig count has fallen 32 percent from its peak last year, Petrello said.

21. Say, as some analysts are predicting, the storage capacity of the US tops out and oil drops to somewhere between $20 and $35.

    The tar sands industry will be destroyed. How much of the shale oil industry will remain?

    1. Anonymous,

       As long as the WCS can find its way to the Gulf Coast, and the pipelines are in place to carry significant quantities right now, then it will have a market in the heavy oil refineries along the coast. It just needs to displace Mexican or Venezuelan oil, which is ship born and can relatively easy to head to another port/refinery. Noting that the most suitable refineries are in India and China.
       It is the LTO, that will be destroyed, as there is not enough refinery capacity in the US to handle it all, and it is band/restricted from export and therefore requires storage in the US.
       The oil industry has been planning for years for WCS. Shale LTO, is the Johnny come lately, and trying to muscle into a fully committed market.

       1. Tool push, the obvious solution is for the government to remove export limits.

          Maybe I’ll build a small pipe still, recover a 120 molecular weight super light crude and use it as vehicle fuel. The pipe still bottoms can go to the refinery. It could be a really good fuel for trains hauling grain and crude in the Midwest?

          1. Fernando: I have followed the issues with LTO flooding the market. We sell crude with API ranging 30 to 36. Our basis to WTI has been firming up some with no real explanation, and we are afraid to ask the purchasers when we get a better price, of course.

             I assume there is not a glut of sweet crude 30 to 36 API, as there apparently is for API of 45 or higher?

             Would be interested on your opinion or anyone else’s who could shed some light on this.

             1. The surplus of oil in storage in Cushing and along the GC is all Bakken and Eagle Ford oil and therefore is in the plus 42 degree range. I know this for a fact as a lot of crude I produce is less than 30 gravity and receives a premium price because of its blendability with LTO. More important that price, my oil gets hauled every month. In S. Texas getting LTO moved off location is not always a gimme anymore. Five days before the end of each month lots of major trunk lines simply get shut down; oil hotels in Houston and points east have no vacancy signs on them. If the LACT stations are down, trucks don’t haul. It won’t be long before they’ll be shutting wells in, IMO. Yet these shale guys keep hammering away at it, like there is no tomorrow.

                Conservation principles by regulatory agencies have historically played a role in America’s oil resource management. In the good ‘ol days, States regulated densities and well spacing; some even set maximum production allowables per well. For the most part, small to medium size, non-integrated independents did not borrow money to drill oil or gas wells. We grew off cash flow. The inherent risks of conventional resource exploration helped manage the pace of America’s oil development. Accordingly, the balance between domestic supply and demand stayed in check and oil and gas prices were fairly stable, save the occasional worldwide hiccups that occurred.

                Now its like a parking lot at a Mexican wedding out there. These shale knot heads don’t have to worry about well spacing, or well densities; if they want to drill 8 million dollar wells on 20 acre spacing, they can. There is no risk in drilling these shale wells, at least not in the conventional sense of failure or success, and the shale industry can lie thru its teeth and borrow money it will never, ever be able to pay back. It’s been a free for all. The end result is 3 1/2 million barrels of increased domestic oil production, in a short period of time, that has indeed flooded the oil market and upset the fragile balance between supply and demand and futures speculation. The shale industry pee’d down it’s own pant leg.

                Once this surplus is dried up, will the shale industry take a more conservative approach to future development to avoid oil price volatility? Hell no they won’t. As soon as prices recover they’ll start frac’ing everything that does not move and down prices will go again.

                The wankers.

                The answer, by the way, is to NOT allow exports for the short term benefit of CLR’s private fleet of G-5’s. Exporting US oil will not help increase prices. If America is oversupplied, the world is oversupplied, look at the differential in WTI and Brent. Besides, America is going to need this stinking shale oil someday.

                Mike

                1. nice comment Mike.

                   What a tangled web we weave.

                2. Hi Mike,

                   Could the RRC step in and limit output? Hopefully the NDIC would be given the power to do the same. Probably won’t happen cause it makes sense.

                3. Howdy, Dennis:

                   Thank you. It’s nice to hear somebody interested in oil related matters on a peak oil blog; its like the Gangs of New York around here now days.

                   It certainly could, the TRRC; but as you say, it won’t. The GNP of Texas benefits vastly from the employment, the influx of tax revenue, all the way down to the county level, and royalty income to private mineral ownership from the shale biz. Any politician proposing a means to rein in the shale oil industry in the name of price stability and long term resource management would immediately be boiled in a big pot.

                   On another matter, Dennis; drilling and completion costs are really dropping now. I tend to discount quick declines in daily rig rates and pumping related services the first 6 months of a downturn like this, but when pipe (casing and tubing) costs start to come down I interpret that to be an indicator of much lower costs. I am hearing price declines of 30%, even more, for the shale guys. Not that that will save them, but its interesting.

                   Another interesting observation is the density of working rigs in obvious sweet spots. I saw 12 rigs running in a 5 square mile area the other day, then not another rig for 20 miles. FYI, don’t be fooled by web site dribble about rig days to drill a shale well; one of the shale biz’s neat tricks is to have a smaller rig drilling and setting surface casing (3000 feet plus/minus) on a multi-slot pad, then have the big rigs fall in behind drilling only the radius and lateral and running casing to the toe. When they brag about 12-15 days, IMO that’s big rig time working only below surface casing. 21 to 25 days, with no problems, is the real deal. Not that it matters much.

                   http://wwwgisp.rrc.state.tx.us/GISViewer2/

                   Go to Karnes County, or DeWitt; it looks like pixie sticks. How much longer can that go on?

                   Not much.

                   Mike

                4. Thank you Mike,
                   very interesting observations

             2. http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/us-running-out-of-oil-storage-blame-canada/ar-BBidX13

                Blame the US shale industry.

                1. Mike: As I posted above, I think probably a couple years or so of oil prices, $60 WTI or lower, is needed in order that many of the shale companies bite the dust, their bonds default, etc. One would think the money spigot would be shut off to them, even in the event the price rises some, but I doubt it.

                   Financial repression has caused a lot of bubbles. The retired people who used to get 5% off of a CD or Treasury now have to put money in bond funds to get a higher yield. Plus think of all the pension funds that are chasing higher yield. Investors are also a pretty naïve bunch, and that probably includes me on anything other than oil.

                   I really do not want sub $60 WTI for a couple years or more, because it means we will have to limp along, month to month, during that time. I also do not want that, because many people who thought they had a good job, have or will lose it.

                   Absent the price dropping long term into the 30s or below, we will survive. I think it will take a year or two for it to sink in that the shale guys went too fast and that they are now drilling wells in a huge, but marginal, fields, that will never pay out.

                   Wall street and the shale guys lost touch with reality. I am amazed at how much money that has been borrowed. However, why should we be surprised, really. We have already been through a tech bubble and a real estate bubble.

                   Most of the shale companies owe over $50,000 per flowing boe. On stuff that will decline 50% in the first year and another 25% in the second year. No principal reduction will occur, so that $50,000 per flowing BOE will soon become $100-150,000 per flowing boe. That is an unheard of amount of debt, it is totally unreasonable.

                   Most of them owe more than double their PDP PV10 based on the current NYMEX WTI strip. As I have hammered away, most banks will loan up to about HALF of PDP PV10. So the shale guys now have debt of over 4 times what a bank would normally lend, based on my experience.

                   To explain it with an example everyone should understand, it is kind of like having a house that appraises for $200,000. Normally, you would be allowed to borrow $160,000 on it. Instead, you were allowed to borrow $240,000. Unfortunately, housing values collapsed, now you owe $240,000 on a house that is worth $100,000. But then the real kicker is that if you do not borrow another $50,000 to improve your house, the value next year will fall to $50,000. So your choices are either owe $290,000 on a $100,000 house next year, or $240,000 on a $50,000 house, with the only way out to pray for a huge rebound in the housing market. This is the reality for most shale companies, IMO. I cannot believe how well their share prices, for the most part, are holding up.

                   I read just today a company bragging about how much liquidity they have. They have almost no cash, but do have a big line of credit they can draw on. When someone compares money drawn on a credit line to cash, you know they have lost sight of paying debt back.

                   I also do not understand how these guys can drill wells with no spacing requirements like it is 1901 at Spindletop. How do they get away with that? We have spacing requirements still, and it is not easy to get our state to make exceptions to them.

                   In any event, we will hopefully be able to continue to sell our oil and get enough for it to pay the bills.

                   Again, thanks for the space to vent a little (or a lot)!

                2. There are spacing and density regulations in all the major shale plays, of course; in the Eagle Ford some wells only require 40 acres and distance between parallel laterals can be as low as 300 feet. The point I wished to make was to draw on regulatory history, in the name of conservation, as a means of controlling the shale oil spending spree and insuring price stability going forward. It will not happen thru regulatory guidance, I know. Oil is a tax generator that no state, county or school district, anywhere, wants to reel in.

                   Control of this out of control spending spree will happen when the reality sets in regarding reserve downgrades, 2nd quarter, and the OMG moment lenders are going to have looking and debt to asset ratios. There will be no more money to borrow and shale companies will have to move forward on their own cash flow merits. In reality then, by over drilling, by amassing all of that enormous debt, by helping to drive the price oil down 60% the shale oil industry has forever changed its future.

                   I would say, be sure and shut the gate on your way out.

                   Mike

                3. Great post, you explained all of this so well, shallow sand!

                4. Mike,

                   I read your link. I was surprised to read that more Canadian oil came in to Cushing then left for the Gulf Coast.

                   Energy Aspects notes that since Flanagan started up in late November it has delivered about 33 million barrels into Cushing, while the Seaway Twin has only taken 15 million of those on down to Houston, leaving 18 million extra parked in Cushing, which has about 75 million barrels of total storage capacity

                   Contango, is given the blame, but there must a reason for the contango. So either it is taking time to displace Mex & Vz oil, or more capacity to process this oil is becoming available?
                   I must admit, I would have thought WSC would have had a ready market, while the the shale is battling to find a home.

                5. Tool push, evidently some players are storing the oil because the have the financial strength to wait (as you point out the market says oil prices will increase). As the Cushing tanks fill up they will ship to the Houston refineries. To accomplish this they will have a price war with the Mexico and Venezuela import streams. The heavy oil blend market has a niche or su sector, and the refineries may start looking at the goodies used to blend the extra heavy. Venezuela blends with their own condensates and light crude, their own syncrude, and with imported Algerian light. The Canadian price will depend on the blend stock. But in the end the Canadians should displace Venezuelan and Mexico Maya (because they have to pay the tanker transport costs).

             3. Perhaps you could give your location of sale?

                A premium of 30-36 API to WTI doesn’t really make any sense based on grade. Based on a transportation bottleneck, I wouldn’t find it terribly surprising.

       2. toolpush,

          Ah, but we need that condensate so we can ship it to Canada so it can be used to dilute the bitumen so that can be pipelined to the US so, er, Midwest refineries can refine it (along with the WCS that hasn’t been making it to the Gulf Coast) so that…

          Well, anyway: we can’t let LTO go under, you see? VENEZUELA WOULD WIN.

          1. Synapsid,

             Yes condensate is used as dilutent in Dilbit, but I believe natural gasoline or pentane is the preferred. Though, lot of this is produced from condensate.
             But more to the point, if the Dilbit was using all of the shale LTO/condensate, there would not be an excess of LTO on the market. It is the excess and lack of market, that is the problem!

             1. toolpush,

                We ship the diluent back to the Canadians, is what I was told by a modest fellow with 40 years in the Gulf Coast oil patch and an unbreakable addiction to Blue Bell Ice Cream.

                Of course, I’m going on memory.

                1. Synapsid,

                   Not to get too bogged down in the logistics of what is used for dilutent for dilbit, but my point is, the shale plays are just producing way too much for the dilutent market to absorb. That is why the latest craze is to build splitters and stabilizers, which opens the market for export of any excess supply.
                   I am not sure what question Rockman was replying to, but I am sure he would agree with me, when I say the shale plays are just producing too much condensate for the market to absorb.

                2. Hi toolpush.

                   No question about your last point: there’s way too much condensate and lights for the diluent trade with Canada, and it’s part of the bit-in-the-mouth overproduction that Mike has described and that we all know about.
                   —
                   The most uncomfortable part of the picture is what you pointed out a while back: once the oil price goes back up, overproduction from the shales will resume. I have no faith in the idea that funding will not be available because of the company failures we’re seeing and will continue to see–that presupposes a more sensible Wall Street than I’m aware of.

                3. Regarding the dilbit/condensate issue, the Duvernay play, located nearby the heavy oil from western Canada, has been seen by many as a potentially economic, local abundant source of diluent for the oil sands transportation. Early stages, yet.

                4. I suspect the Duvernay won’t be nearly as good as the Bakken.

                5. Fernando,

                   What do you think the Duvernay and the Montney will amount to? What are your reasons?

                   I’m curious because I see a lot of mention of them but I’m not familiar with the region.

                6. Synapsid, The Duvernay has some deep-pocketed operators who seem to be able to repeatedly produce good wells, but the overall logistics are pretty daunting. Perhaps the biggest plus is the high percentage of condensates, in addition to the very large amount recoverable (estimates vary, but the several billion barrel range is frequently mentioned). The proximity to the oil sands should be the biggest motivating factor to develop this field.
                   The Alberta government has policies encouraging investment, (I read to the tune of $6 million/well, but I do not know if that is accurate).
                   Trilogy Energy has a short history online describing their efforts. Seems to be slow, steady progression.

                7. coffeeg,

                   Yes, the plays have that strong point of a straight shot to the Alberta oil sands, and there is indeed a whole lot of work being done in them, BlackRock, Encana, Shell–big hopes, it looks like. I’ve only seen stuff from the investment point of view, though, so I asked Fernando for his reasons to learn if they’re based in the geology.

                   Ron has a new post so this might get left behind.

22. LISTEN UP EVERYBODY ,

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/03/03/freak-flaw-undermines-security-for-apple-and-google-users-researchers-discover/

    I don’t know why the title mentions only apple and google since this seems to be an across the board sort of problem. Maybe the person who wrote the lead has it in for both companies.

    1. Yeah Fernando,

       That seems to be the plan.
       http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/08/phillips66-condensate-splitter-idUSL1N0TS24420141208

       Though once the government started playing with the export rules and started to allow condensate, that had been split, to be exported, then companies stopped worrying about putting the splitters near the refineries, they just planned to put them near the supply and available to export terminals

23. From above Futilitist wrote: Fernando raised an interesting objection:

    “Nature (Magazine) is no longer a reliable source in this field, they have a heavy political slant.”
    ~Fernando Leanme

    I think Ron is right on this one, but I wouldn’t want to jump to any conclusions. Maybe Fernando could lay out his argument in more detail for everyone to evaluate.

    No, I am going to have to agree with Fernando on this one, Nature Magazine does have a political slant, but so does Science Magazine. They both slant toward a belief in science, and that means a leftward slant. All the anti science bullshit is on the right. So if you are pro science you slant left and if you are anti science you slant right.

    Science magazine, since that 1982 article, has come full circle. They have kept up with the science of global warming and climate change, which has made tremendous strides since 1982. Check out this August 2013 special issue on Climate Change:

    Natural Systems in Changing Climates

    This special issue of Science has 13 articles and two slide presentations on climate change. From the introduction:

    Anthropogenic climate change is now a part of our reality. Even the most optimistic estimates of the effects of contemporary fossil fuel use suggest that mean global temperature will rise by a minimum of 2°C before the end of this century and that CO2 emissions will affect climate for tens of thousands of years. A key goal of current research is to predict how these changes will affect global ecosystems and the human population that depends on them. This special section of Science focuses on the current state of knowledge about the effects of climate change on natural systems, with particular emphasis on how knowledge of the past is helping us to understand potential biological impacts and improve predictive power.

    The introduction can be viewed in its entirety and so can the two slide shows but you can only get an abstract of the articles.

    1. “All the anti science bullshit is on the right. So if you are pro science you slant left and if you are anti science you slant right.”

       Almost. Politics is pollution. Many, many of those on the “left” are organics fundamentalists, anti-vaccine zealots, GMO hysterics, and “alt-med” quacks.

       I refuse to declare allegiance to any party.

       http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/

       1. Almost. Politics is pollution. Many, many of those on the “left” are organics fundamentalists, anti-vaccine zealots, GMO hysterics, and “alt-med” quacks.

          I don’t deny that there are a lot of nut cases on the far left but the vast majority of the anti-vaccine zealots are of the Michele Bachmann type, far right nut cases. Ms. Bachmann is the quintessential anti-vaccine far right nut case.

          Michelle Bachmann’s anti-vaccine statements cross the political pseudoscience divide

          First, I can’t help but express my frustration that the Republican Party has so firmly become the anti-science party.

          

          1. Hi Ron.

             “So if you are pro science you slant left and if you are anti science you slant right.”

             I think you are absolutely correct.

             But it puts us in a very uncomfortable situation here. On the one hand, it makes sense to respect a person’s right to hold opposing views. Long standing rules of etiquette demand that we do this. But, on the other hand, people who hold anti-science views have really drifted so far away from reality that it is impossible to take them seriously. Anti-science views are simply not respectable. Catch 22.

             How can a serious person be expected to respect a person’s right to hold irrational views in a serious debate? It makes no sense at all.

             Rigid application of arbitrary rules of etiquette artificially elevates the irrational to the level of respectability.

             The DENIERS figured out that they could use the existing rules of etiquette to their advantage. I think it is time to change the rules.

             1. Ordinarily I would not even bother to respond to you Futilista except to point out you are a mental midget so far as your comments and insults go.

                BUT there might be a few people lurking here who are young and thus not yet very wise in the ways of absolutists, true believers, socialists, communists, capitalists, and ISTs of all sorts when it comes to winning control of public opinion.

                Futulista you seem to think the audience here is as dumb as you are.

                You think you a are smart enough to snow your audience when you are not as well informed as the audience and too ignorant to realize it.

                You have provided everybody with an excellent indication of the measure of your intellect.

                If you were in charge here or anywhere THERE WOULD BE NO DEBATE serious or otherwise.

                Change the rules would you ???

                Perhaps you learned more your self while studying the history of the Nazis that you would care to admit—-although they were not the first to realize that controlling speech means controlling society.

                You certainly just advocated using one of the favorite techniques used by totalitarians of all stripes.

                In case anybody wonders check his comment at five forty four pm March four. This reply may not be directly underneath it.

                In any case if it turns out the entire world and every living thing in it IS headed to hell in a hand basket then debating the subject is a total waste of time anyway.

                A few years or a few centuries more or less of business as usual or monkey business of ANY SORT would not matter AT ALL in terms of geological time.

                I will be so devious and under handed as to point out that YOU insist that the situation is hopeless- not me.

                I suggest you go someplace pleasant and enjoy the hell out of whatever time remains to you as best you can .…… .instead of trying to discourage every body else from actually DOING SOMETHING even if it turns out to be wrong.

                Even if everything they do is wrong they will still feel better for the duration of whatever time they have left.

                I will repeat myself one more time. There is no need for me to point this stuff out to the regulars who comment here but there may be some lurkers who are young or who pay little attention to such things and are thus not well acquainted with your sort of foolishness.

                In the construction business there is a saying among smalltimers who run small their own businesses.

                ” My way or the highway” is the way it is generally expressed in the fewest possible easy to remember words.

                Fortunately this blog is not your property. You aren’t the boss.

                You wouldn’t last five minutes in a junior high school debate. You have not yet contributed – so far as I have noticed- a single serious comment indicating that you are capable of thinking or that you have ever even tried to think.

                You quote authority endlessly. The point is not whether the authorities you quote are right or wrong but that you are a mindless follower rather than a thinker.

                I will spit my coffee all over my keyboard if you ever say anything original.

                Anybody who wants to understand people who are fixated on a given idea will enjoy reading Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer.

                It’s a great read and chock full of deep insights into the behavior of naked apes.

                It is unpleasantly cold and very wet and windy and my outside work is caught up. The roads are slick. I am not leaving the place today barring an emergency., or even going outside except to check on and feed the livestock.

                The fire is nice and warm and there is a pot of excellent murdered Bambi stew simmering on the stove. All I need is a bit of amusement to make my day complete..

                Why don’t you propose another brilliant solution to a problem you have been insisting is insoluble?

                A good laugh is one of the great pleasures of life.

                1. “Ordinarily I would not even bother to respond to you Futilista except to point out you are a mental midget so far as your comments and insults go.”

                   You shouldn’t have, then. You are just trying to bait me.

                   And my name is Futilitist. You are just being rude (and trying to paint me as some sort of communist). Please refrain from this in the future. Thank you.

                   “Fortunately this blog is not your property. You aren’t the boss.”

                   And neither are you. But a casual reader might assume this was your blog, since the shear number of words you post far outweighs all others here.

                2. “Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves.”
                   ~Eric Hoffer

                3. This was a very rude rant that was not called for in any way. There was absolutely nothing in Futilist’s post that called for this bullying tirade, which was nothing more than a series of ad hominem attacks.

                   I take it you’re climate science denier — the only ideas I saw in your post, apart from the personal attack — because of geological time being your reference point.

                   You sound very angry.

                4. Hi SP.

                   He is angry. But he is not a climate change denier. He is a collapse denier.

                   Fu-til-i-tist

                5. SP,

                   I assume you have not read the many exchanges I have had with Futulista back to the beginning. He has constantly impugned my personal ethics in general and my honesty in particular. He has insinuated in no uncertain terms that I am a Nazi sympathizer. He calls me a denialist so often I wouldn’t want to count the times.

                   He has actually called me a fascist and he constantly accuses everybody who disagrees with him of using the same propaganda tactics he uses continually.

                   I will quit calling him a futilista when he quits calling me a dentist and implying I am a fascist or a Nazi.

                   As a matter of fact I have generally and often predicted a truly major collapse as the result of overshoot and fossil fuel depletion in particular as well as natural resource depletion across the board.

                   The real difference between me and a dyed in the wool doomer is that I believe there is a serious possibility that some portion of modern civilization – industrial civilization will survive the collapse headed our way. I may be wrong. He may be right.

                   But he insists on shutting up anybody who disagrees with him.

                   If you are seriously concerned as to who is abusing who here personally go back a a few weeks and read every post I have made that he has responded to , and what he has said. What I have had to say in return is usually nearby below.

                   I rest my case. Read the record it is here and it is free.

                6. Hi SP.

                   The above is just an attempt at more damage control. Old farmer mac is a historical revisionist. He hopes you will just take his word. That is a smokescreen. The last thing in the world he wants is for anybody to actually go back and read what was actually said. He is highly embarrassed, so he digs himself a deeper hole in his attempt to redeem himself.

                   His real purpose is to create such a terrible distracting fuss that we will both be blamed for disrupting this site, since that would be easier for everyone than untangling his lies. He has been here longer than me, and people are more used to him than me. He hopes to play on these people feeling sorry for him. He is just desperate.

                   I think I am starting to feel sorry for him.

                7. VIVA FUTILISTA!
                   Dueling scars, bro.

                   Don’t fight ’em- rock ’em.

                   Every time he calls you Futilista instead of Futilitist, he makes your argument for you.

                   -Lloyd

                8. High five, Lloyd!

                   I’ve been watching you rockin’ the house, too. Nice.

       2. Rig count in the Bakken at 114, will be at 111 soon.

          The War on Coal is anti-science, and that war is being waged by left wing nutjobs, so the left wing definitely favors anti-science to kill an industry.

          Can’t be any more anti-science than that and it comes from the left, not the right.

          I wouldn’t trust a Republican any farther than I can throw them at a just as untrustworthy Democrat. With any luck whatsoever, both parties will disband before lunch or, better yet, declare war on each other and all will be gone before sunset. Which would be a dream come true.

          Oil-by-Rail Fuels Record U.S. Imports of Canadian Oil

          “California imports of Canadian oil sky-rocket”

          1. Ronald,

             Great link, and it has a heap of other links, that I am working through.

             Thanks, but the short story is Canadian WCS is coming to the US or tidewater, one way or the other. But for those that are worried, dilbit/railbit /Nearbit are safer by rail than Bakken light crude.

             1. It looks like Canada is sending WCS to more places than, The Midwest, Cushing, or the Gulf Coast.
                The railways are taking dilbit to the East Coast, to go to Europe, the Caribbean, and the east Coast refineries.

                http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/first-oil-sands-bitumen-tanker-arrives-in-sorel-tracy-port-1.2774225
                http://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/houston/buckeye-plans-for-heavy-crude-by-rail-at-perth-21569521

          2. The War on Coal is anti-science, and that war is being waged by left wing nutjobs, so the left wing definitely favors anti-science to kill an industry.

             That’s a crock. You are confusing science with Koch Brothers type of capitalism. I find it really astonishing that you would think the effort to stop dirty coal pollution is a war on science. Good grief.

             1. It is not the science that I referenced by cryptic nuance, the boatload of nutjob environmentalists that stopped the shipload of coal to dock at the Brayton Point power plant.

                National campaigners join Massachusetts locals to close Brayton Point coal plant, 2013

                It begins:

                “Thee Brayton Point Power Station, a coal burning power plant in Somerset, Massachusetts, regularly emits mercury, lead, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide into the atmosphere. Brayton Point is one of the largest single sources of pollution in all of New England. Local activists had been fighting the coal plant for a decade when other organizations joined to escalate the struggle.

                On 17 May 2013 Ken Ward of Boston and Jay O’Hara of Cape Cod brought their 32-foot former lobster boat to Brayton Point. The men wanted to use their boat to blockade the offloading of 40,000 tons of coal bound for the Brayton Point Power Station.”

                Let’s hope that the mercury in the lobster they catch and caught accumulates in every leftist’s empty head. lol

                Can’t get much more idiotic than what they did, must have nothing better to do. Might want to consider doing something that is worth the while, contribute something, go pick up some garbage along the roadway for a day or two, you know, initiate some real reform, not that in your face I’m gonna be heard and you’re gonna do what we say line of brainwashed phoney baloney canned science that is incontrovertible so we’re gonna take some action, put a stop to this, all bunkum and bosh, they need to get real. It ain’t science and is totally unproductive, they need to get a life or something. Take it easy, give it a rest.

                Just a bunch of war on coal propaganda, maybe supported by science, agenda driven nonetheless, which leads to criminal behavior. Hardly science by any stretch of the imagination.

                Einstein knew the human intellect is capable of infinite stupidity, it shows in five-story bold block letters that read ‘STUPID’.

                The left’s true colors are red and green, fueled by idiocy.

                Uff da

                Beam me up

             2. Ron, so we can follow your logic, what is “the Koch Brothers type of capitalism” and how does it differ from? Well? I guess “your type of capitalism.”
                For example, Warren Buffett transports coal all over the United States, which has helped make him billions of $. What is “his type” of capitalism? I think that he should declare that Burlington Northern will not ship one more carload of coal, in order to differentiate him from – well, I guess, people like the Koch brothers.

                1. Koch Brothers type of capitalism is the type that wants the top 1 percent to make all the profits and the bottom 99 percent to make minimum wage. Warren Buffett type of capitalism wants the top 1 percent to pay their share of taxes and wants the middle class to make a fair wage.

                   Buffett knows the middle class is the backbone of the economy and unless they are well off, the nation is not well off.

                   About coal. I believe that coal will be burnt until there is no oil left to burn or it is too expensive and too poor quality to extract. But, having said that I think scrubbers should be used in every coal fueled power plant in the world.

                   The so called “war on coal” is waged by people who’s heart is in the right place but their efforts are futile, just as the war on all fossil fuels is futile. The idea that so-called “renewables” can replace fossil fuels is not realistic.

                   I firmly believe that climate change is caused, primarily, by the burning of fossil fuel. However I do not think anything significant will ever be done to stop the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere.

                   My point in the post, which you refer to, is that the idea that the “war on coal” is anti science is absurdly silly. People who are against the use of coal are, of course, fighting a losing battle but it has absolutely nothing to do with science. And I do hope you understand that logic.

                2. The idea that so-called “renewables” can replace fossil fuels is not realistic.

                   Because of intermittency? There are some big, serious utilties finding out otherwise:

                   “forecasts are helping power companies deal with one of the biggest challenges of wind power: its intermittency. Using small amounts of wind power is no problem for utilities. They are accustomed to dealing with variability—after all, demand for electricity changes from season to season, even from minute to minute. However, a utility that wants to use a lot of wind power needs backup power to protect against a sudden loss of wind. These backup plants, which typically burn fossil fuels, are expensive and dirty. But with more accurate forecasts, utilities can cut the amount of power that needs to be held in reserve, minimizing their role.

                   Before the forecasts were developed, Xcel Energy, which supplies much of Colorado’s power, ran ads opposing a proposal that it use renewable sources for a modest 10 percent of its power. It mailed flyers to its customers claiming that such a mandate would increase electricity costs by as much as $1.5 billion over 20 years.

                   But thanks in large part to the improved forecasts, Xcel, one of the country’s largest utilities, has made an about-face.

                   It has installed more wind power than any other U.S. utility and supports a mandate for utilities to get 30 percent of their energy from renewable sources, saying it can easily handle much more than that.

                   ..forecasts from NCAR are already having a big effect. Last year, on a windy weekend when power demand was low, Xcel set a record: during one hour, 60 percent of its electricity for Colorado was coming from the wind. “That kind of wind penetration would have given dispatchers a heart attack a few years ago,” says Drake Bartlett, who heads renewable-energy integration for Xcel. Back then, he notes, they wouldn’t have known whether they might suddenly lose all that power. “Now we’re taking it in stride,” he says. “And that record is going to fall.””

                   http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/526541/smart-wind-and-solar-power/

                3. Solar will replace fossil fuels by the mid-2030s. Guaranteed.

                   This isn’t even in question any more. People who’ve studied it seriously — professional investors, who are putting their money where their mouth is — simply treat it as a proven fact. There are multiple reports out from investment banks.

                   Feel free to bet the wrong way and lose your money.

                   Intermittency isn’t a serious issue, though it requires some investment in a smarter dispatching system for the grid. This has been largely solved and published in the academic journals, just not always implemented.

                   Or it can be dealt with the dumb way by installing lots of batteries. Which are cheap enough (and getting cheaper) that this will probably happen in places where the utility company is stupid.

                4. Ah, just curious, but would these be the same professional investors who put their money where their mouth was for, say, shale stocks in 2010 or real estate stocks in 2005 or Internet stocks in 2000?

                   I wonder, because “Debt” by David Graeber had some delightful quotes from such professionals before the recent real estate thing.

                5. Thanks, Nathaniel. I’d be interested in some sources on what investors are saying on solar replacing fossil fuels.

                6. Nathanael, your comment here reads too much like a corporate soundbite.
                   Next time can we please go over it together?
                   Thanks!

                7. The system in Spain is maxed out at about 23 % wind plus solar. I think it can be increased to 30 % using load shedding into Europe. The government here just signed an agreement with France and Portugal to spend 1.5 billion € to build high voltage lines across borders. But there’s a limit to what can be done while keeping current retail prices from killing the consumer. The economy just can’t stand those super high subsidies used elsewhere.

                8. piece from Grist on the Mississippi Power/Southern coal gasification plant in Kemper County, MS.

                   http://exp.grist.org/clean-coal/

          3. Ronald,
             I just yesterday drove near several refineries in the east bay (across from San Francisco) and I was surprised st the numerous unit trains sitting on the side tracks.
             Many.

    2. Science publications has a political agenda, which leads them to publish low quality scientific papers. They also own Scientific American magazine, which has been publishing some really low quality propaganda. The latest I saw was an article by a famous political scientist known as Michael Mann, “False Hope”.

       My critique is here

       http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/2014/07/false-hope-by-michael-mann.html

       1. Hi Fernando.

          You want people to believe that science is propaganda.

          You are a propagandist.

          1. I am a propagandist? I don’t publish a journal. My main aim is to defend human rights, undermine dictatorships, and comment about things. I never get peer reviewed, i don’t expect to be worshiped, and I don’t charge $35 for garbage.

             So did you like my critique of the Mann article? Or try reading “Finland threatens Europe”.

             1. “I am a propagandist?”

                Yes. You are well known on the net as a tireless climate change denier. You have fans in that movement. You are very well versed in the underhanded debate tactics used by deniers. You want to pretend that isn’t true so you can seem reasonable and debate things on a technical level. You are deceptive.

             2. Please find a quote in which I deny the climate changes. I suspect you are confused because the issue is really complicated. Here’s a simple primer you can use. It’s propaganda I wrote to criticize an article on salon.com

                http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/2014/12/global-warming-101-short-course.html

                1. More DECEPTION. I never said you deny the climate changes. And you know it.

                   You are the one who is confused.

                   And you are still a propagandist.

                   And I followed your link. Your propaganda sucks.

                2. Let me quote you

                   “Yes. You are well known on the net as a tireless climate change denier. You have fans in that movement.”

                   My fans don’t deny the climate.

                3. Give me a break. You know what climate change denier means. You are a pro.

    3. Can’t speak for Nature as I do not regularly read it, but Science in their editorials and news sections is often very political these days. Mostly calling for the Democrats to keep dumping more and more taxpayer money into the public-sector grant business or chastising Republicans merely for their beliefs. Sad to see such a long-running periodical turn against the worldview and belief system of the majority of Americans since far more Americans indicate they are conservative rather than liberal. Liberals are just a very tiny, but often noisy, minority in most places of the country. You can download Science magazine for free most weeks too, see the political slant I’m talking about.

       As far as what you write about “if you are pro science you slant left and if you are anti science you slant right.” I completely disagree that the right is any more anti science than the left. Let me try to explain the conservative worldview on climate science for you.

       1. Do we believe that the climate is changing? Yes. It always has and always will.

       2. Do we believe that humans are the primary reason for the changes? Maybe, maybe not.

       3. Do we believe the climate changes will have the disastrous effects as predicted by the alarmists? No. Fractions of a degree are not at all life-changing.

       4. But, even if we would say Yes to the first 3 questions, we certainly can’t guarantee the drastic proposals being offered to stop climate change would actually be effective. To purposely and unnecessarily increase the costs of living, reduce our standards of living, and kill our entire economic system on the word of self-professed experts who have been wrong in the past and can’t forecast next week’s weather, is just too costly of an experiment. They have been predicting the end of the world, as we know it, for decades now. Millions of years ago, the oceans and deserts were in different locations than they are today. And we went through periods of warming and cooling. We didn’t cause the changes then, and we can’t stop them now.

       1. To purposely and unnecessarily increase the costs of living, reduce our standards of living, and kill our entire economic system

          This is a good example of why it’s important to clarify that alternatives to oil and coal are in fact cheaper and better.

       2. Hi Jerry O.

          Thanks for the list. I think you got them in the wrong order, though.

          Number 4 should top your list, since all the other points flow from number 4. In fact, numbers 1, 2, and, 3 aren’t really even necessary since they are all derived from number 4.

          If you begin with a statement like number 4, the answers to the first three questions are pre-known to you without having to give them any thought at all, like some kind of revealed wisdom. So the list is really just a deception. It gives the impression that you have actually given the first three points some rational thought. You haven’t.

          —–

          This is the anatomy of DENIAL, folks. That is why I say it makes no sense to confront this kind of willful ignorance with scientific argument. It makes more sense to brutally make fun of how their logic works (or doesn’t). This strategy is far more effective.

          Denial is a grave danger to all us. It is time to stop playing the denier’s game. If anyone expresses points 1, 2, or 3 and wants to debate them with you, you should refuse. Instead, just skip to point number 4 and debate that instead. It drives them crazy.

          1. You clearly have never talked to anyone with a clue.

             It’s completely trivial to stop carbon emissions, *and* it will *increase* our standard of living.

             Do it first, take the advantage.

             1. Do It First! Take the Advantage!™

                You forgot the ™ symbol and exclamation-points, which I added for you. I also took the liberty of emboldening it and adding caps.

                Your editor wants to see you, by the way. Select the hypertext, it’ll take you there. Hope you’re not in trouble.

                Happy drive-by’s. ^u^

          2. Good advice, Futilist.

             1. Hi SP.

                Welcome to the fun.

       3. Thank you Jerry.

          1. Yes, thank you Jerry for revealing the ANATOMY of DENIAL.

24. Bank of England warns of huge financial risk from fossil fuel investments

    Global action on climate change could cause insurers’ investments in fossil fuels to take a huge hit, says bank’s prudential regulation authority

    Damian Carrington, The Guardian, Tuesday 3 March 2015 10.55 GMT

    Insurance companies could suffer a “huge hit” if their investments in fossil fuel companies are rendered worthless by action on climate change, the Bank of England warned on Tuesday.

    “One live risk right now is of insurers investing in assets that could be left ‘stranded’ by policy changes which limit the use of fossil fuels,” said Paul Fisher, deputy head of the bank’s prudential regulation authority (PRA) that supervises banks and insurers and is tasked with avoiding systemic risks to the economy.

    “As the world increasingly limits carbon emissions, and moves to alternative energy sources, investments in fossil fuels – a growing financial market in recent decades – may take a huge hit,” Fisher told an insurance conference. He said there “are already a few specific examples of this having happened”, but did not name them, and added that it was clear his concerns had yet to “permeate” the sector.

    The new warning from one of the world’s key central banks follows a caution from its head Mark Carney that the “vast majority of [fossil fuel] reserves are unburnable” if climate change is to be limited to 2C, as pledged by the world’s governments. The bank will deliver a report to government on the financial risk posed by a “carbon bubble” later in 2015.

    1. We discussed this topic before. Mr Fisher doesn’t understand the oil and gas industry. His logic has a fatal flaw. The way we hear these bean counters speak about the subject sure makes me lose trust in anything they say. Next thing you know they’ll be claiming Finland is a threat to invade Europe.

       1. His logic has a fatal flaw.
          What is the “fatal flaw?”

          1. One possibility is that he is basically saying that the gasoline in your car is now “worthless.”

       2. Lloyd, the bulk of the oil and a lot of the gas reserves is in the hands of national oil companies. Most of them don’t sell their shares.

          1. The Bank of England isn’t talking about shares of Aramco, they’re talking about Shell and Peabody Coal.

             1. Nick the Bank of England can’t stop Peabody from selling out to the Chinese.

                And the Bank can’t stop Venezuela or Canada or Saudi Arabia from doing pretty much as they please.

                Leaving fossil fuels in the ground unburnt is a political non starter when it comes time to actually quit mining and pumping and piping. It won’t happen unless there are alternatives in place.

                I am an optimist compared to most folks on this site I don’t believe renewables are going to ramp up fast enough to prevent a general economic collapse at some point as fossil fuels and other non renewable resources deplete.

                Economically accessible fossil fuels will be burnt barring something preventing it – say WWIII.

                1. It’s not the bank of England that would create the change, it’s the sovereign governments of the United States, Canada etc.

                   Peabody’s coal is in the ground of the US, and the United States has control of it. If the US criminalized coal mining, or if it just imposed a $200 a ton tax on the extraction of coal, China would leave it right where it is.

                   I agree that if the choice is between having the lights go out, and burning all of the coal, we will burn all of the coal. But that’s not the choice: if you impose a stiff tax on coal, it will simply be replaced with wind power. Or solar. Or nuclear, etc.

                   If the US imposes a five dollar a gallon tax on fuel, oil consumption will drop like a rock.

                   Markets really do work, if you use them properly.

             2. Nick, and this is why Mr Fisher can be considered a bean counter with a fine pedigree, but isn’t worth listening to when it comes to the energy business.

                1. And, why is that again? He appears absolutely correct – carbon taxes (or other regs) could hurt oil and coal companies quite a lot.

                2. Not really. Carbon taxes are just a cost of doing business. The only way they can hurt is by killing the overall economy and thus reducing demand for everything. This would include a huge drop in IPhone and big mac sales, will lead to a people’s revolt, and the installation of a government of national unity created by those who survive the Carbon Tax War.

                3. Coal can’t compete with wind and natural gas in the US, so coal consumption is dropping like a rock. Several US coal companies have been looking at bankruptcy.

                   Carbon taxes could do the same to oil companies. If the price to the consumer rises to, say, $7 per gallon (roughly the same level as Europe) consumption would drop very quickly. If prices to both individual and industrial/commercial consumers reached the same level around the world (or even in the OECD), oil consumption and prices paid to producers would also plummet.

                4. Coal is doing fine. Consumption rate should increase for a while. And after we hit peak oil I would expect coal to liquids emerge as a competitor. I think we will see plants built in Colombia.

                5. That’s misleading. Chinese coal is doing great, though there is some possibility they’ll peak (which I don’t see happening significantly elsewhere on the supply side).

                   But, US coal producers are going bankrupt.

                   CTL is unlikely to take off outside China: it requires very, very large scale plants, which are very risky in an environment where carbon taxes or other regs might wipe out your $10B investment overnight.

          2. “As the world increasingly limits carbon emissions, and moves to alternative energy sources, investments in fossil fuels – a growing financial market in recent decades – may take a huge hit”
             ~Paul Fisher

             Fernando: “His logic has a fatal flaw.”

             Lloyd: “What is the “fatal flaw?””

             Fernando: “Lloyd, the bulk of the oil and a lot of the gas reserves is in the hands of national oil companies. Most of them don’t sell their shares.”

             Bullshit. Deception. Total non sequitur, Fernando. Your answer has nothing to do with the question being asked.

             The new warning from one of the world’s key central banks follows a caution from its head Mark Carney that the “vast majority of [fossil fuel] reserves are unburnable” if climate change is to be limited to 2C, as pledged by the world’s governments.

             Do you disagree with this? Please explain your logic. Thanks.

             1. I explained my logic, but it goes way over your head. It’s a religious issue you can’t seem to overcome.

                1. Dodge and weave. And more deception.

                   I am not religious. You are. Climate change denial relies on received wisdom. Science is the opposite. You can’t tell the difference because you are morally schizophrenic, and you project your own irrational thought processes on to others. Your mind is like a hall of mirrors.

                   If you can’t explain your logic when asked a straight question, why should anyone waste any time at all discussing anything with you? This is supposed to be a logical discussion, but you keep trying to cheat. Everything with you is a trick or a deception.

    2. As we are presently seeing a fine example of this… Though one brought on by the frackers themselves, it is worth remembering that demand just has to be less than supply for the value of fossil fuel stocks to decline.

       Once we realize we really have to act, you won’t be able to give away a fossil fuel stock. Meanwhile it will be slow grind downward for fossil fuel stocks etc., with of course some volatility.

       1. “…. you won’t be able to give away a fossil fuel stock”. I am waiting for this and I will take all. You, and several billion others still will use oil in one form or another, for example the pharma products. Transport, heating with NG, and manufacturing cannot be fully electricity. No commercial airplane can run on it.
          I will be the richest man that ever lived on this planet and if you see me I will give you plastic household items for free so you don’t have to go back to stone age living.

          1. pharma products

             What are you thinking of?

             Transport

             Electric vehicles and electric rail.

             heating with NG

             Heat pumps.

             manufacturing

             Is almost entirely powered by electricity.

             commercial airplane

             This is the hardest to replace. The likely path is dramatic increases in efficiency combined with synthetic fuel – a bit more expensive than oil currently, but workable.

25. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31040723

    This is a relatively long article mostly about the advances being made in energy storage. There are a lot of very interesting predictions listed in it by people who ought to know what they are talking about and the general tone of the article is highly optimistic. In my layman’s estimation it is WAY to optimistic.

    But I wish I could bring myself to believe some of the claims made in it.

    One short line leaves me wondering just how smart the author is and how much he expects us to read between the lines. He says Puerto Rico has established a requirement that any new renewable capacity must have thirty percent backup capacity.

    I am not sure exactly what this means but it would appear that it is intended to apply to grid tied renewables and for all intents and purposes that it is a poison pill requirement that would virtually guarantee this country cannot add any new wind or solar power to it’s grid anytime soon.

    This looks like a very foolish move on the part of the government intended to protect which ever very smart business men got it implemented.

    I know load balancing is a hell of a tough job but it is still easily DOABLE so long as adequate fast responding backup such as hydro or a gas plant is available. This does not seem to be an engineering issue at all but rather an issue of providing and paying for the backup infrastructure and keeping it ready to run on a minutes notice.

    Puerto Rico has a good sun and so far as I know a respectable wind resource. Investing in renewables that will keep this relatively poor country’s money at home and provide local jobs instead of paying for MORE for imported gas oil and coal than necessary FOREVER ( the next few decades at least ) looks like a no brainer to me.

    Of course the fact that I actually BELIEVE in peak fossil fuels and the price of them going up and up and up over the next few decades just might bias me a little in favor of renewables.

    1. Mac,I think it’s very reasonable to ask a solar power installer to provide 120 % storage capacity (this should cover cloudy winter days). They can build hydro or whatever suits them. This is a very reasonable alternative. If they don’t want to build the backup then they can pay a fee to those who do. It avoids freeloading.

       1. Hi Fernando,

          You say ”Mac,I think it’s very reasonable to ask a solar power installer to provide 120 % storage capacity (this should cover cloudy winter days). They can build hydro or whatever suits them. This is a very reasonable alternative. If they don’t want to build the backup then they can pay a fee to those who do. It avoids freeloading.”

          I agree totally. As I see it the issue is not at all the necessity of providing backup power but rather the issue is WHO is going to pay for it.

          The cost of back up should be budgeted into renewables capacity and paid to the folks who own the conventional capacity that has to sit idle part of the time and ready to run the rest of the time as needed to balance the load on the grid.

          Given that renewables actually do conserve HUGE quantities of fossil fuels over a period of time and that more renewables are getting built then in my opinion society as a whole is the PRIMARY beneficiary of renewable generation. The air is cleaner and everybody will be healthier and the money spent on AVOIDED purchases of fossil fuels will be saved.

          BEYOND the DIRECT savings in purchased fuel renewables have the effect of REDUCING demand for the displaced fuels with the consequence that the PRICES of these fuels will be LESS than without renewables.

          So – the benefits are spread out all over the place. Figuring out just who should pay how much to cover the expense of maintaining backup capacity is a knotty one.

          But right now the wind and solar industries in the USA are saving us DIRECTLY almost four percent of the cost of purchased coal and gas for electrical generation. These existing renewables facilities will save this much coal and gas for the life of the wind and solar farms.

          In twenty five years than would amount to an entire years purchase cost of coal and gas.

          When we get to ten percent wind and solar we will be saving almost ten percent of actual consumption of coal and gas for generation.

          This will force down coal and gas prices by some amount that could range from a percent or two up to ten or twenty percent. Nobody seems to know.

          We only know that cutting consumption of a commodity by means of using a substitute results in the price of that commodity going DOWN.

          Maybe the best answer is to just let the utilities own the wind and solar farms directly. Then they can figure out their own cost structures and optimize their infrastructure. Then they could be regulated and allowed a reasonable profit margin.

          But I would rather have distributed ownership of generating capacity and a well regulated delivery grid operated as a near monopoly in the public interest.

          I am convinced renewables are economically viable when ALL the costs of fossil fuels are taken into account and ESPECIALLY when the overlooked SAVINGS associated with renewables are considered.

          1. Mac, I prefer the accounting books straight, transparent, and kept by people I trust. If a solar panel salesman wants my trust then I need full accounting. Instead, I get a lot of hot air.

             i don’t look at this set of problems from a UScentric point of view. As far as I can see the world benefits much more if I get charged €0,02 per kWh and the money is used to finance hydropower in the third world.

    2. Mac,

       You’re right – it’s far cheaper for the grid to provide balancing than for any one generation source to do it. That’s why nuclear power plants (which can make the grid lose a gigawatt of capacity in minutes) aren’t required to provide their own backup.

       This is common protectionism. For instance, Ukraine desperately needs more windpower, but it’s been stalled by a requirement that the turbines be built domestically!

    3. At the beginning of the article is a striking throwaway line:

       “Managing demand more effectively using smart grids and appliances is another.”

       Whoa! Demand Side Management is cheap, proven and incredibly effective. But, utilities fight it tooth and nail because it doesn’t require capital expenditures, and tends to reduce consumption.

       DSM is incredibly important, and incredibly under-used.

       1. Sources on those claims? Most of what I’ve seen out of Germany and the EU agencies makes most DSM look barely beneficial at all.

          1. First, we don’t really need to consult an authority, we can analyze it ourselves. Let’s look at several categories:

             EVs:

             The US has 230M light vehicles, which eventually will be electric. If they have an average of only 25 kWhs of storage, that’s 5.75 terawatt hours of storage, or 13 hours of US electricity generation. This storage is free to the grid: the EV owners have already paid for it. The typical car is only in use for 1 hour per day, driving roughly 35 miles per day in the US, and rather less in other countries (abour 20 miles per day in the EU). These vehicles can be connected to the grid 95% of the time.

             Strategic planning for charging (by very smart cars) would be more than enough to soak up excess night or daytime generation and shift it to the time of day that’s needed.

             These vehicles could also send power back to the grid (V2G), just as distributed solar installations do today. V2G would actually involve some cost to owners by using charge/discharge cycle, but it would certainly be usable for unusual, high value occurences: frequency balancing, major supply interruptions, etc.

             Lighting:

             Almost all lighting levels are above minimum levels needed for safety: they’re set for optimal visibility and readability (and are often well above that). They can be reduced temporarily if needed.

             HVAC:

             Temperatures needs exist in a range, and systems are generally designed to maintain that range. A large percentage of systems can be turned off for short periods without affecting temp management.

             Hmmm. I have lots more (including a lot of sources), but that’s a start. Below is a nice discussion of grid balancing (biomass generation, pumped storage, EV DSM) for the next 10 or so pages:

             http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c26/page_189.shtml

             1. So the idea is to have these battery vehicles hooked up to deliver power to the grid during peak demand hours, just around sunrise and after sunset? When are these vehicles going to get charged? During the day?

                1. The first step is to charge when consumption is low: early in the morning, in the middle of the day where solar power is significant, and anytime there are peaks in production. That’s easy and essentially zero-cost.

                   The 2nd step is V2G: vehicles would send power back during periods of unusually low production or unusually high demand. This might require a bit more infrastructure, and might entail some cost to vehicle owners so it likely would be smaller volume and kick in less routinely than charge management/scheduling.

                2. In Spain early in the morning is peak hour. At that point in time the sun is too low, there’s barely any wind and those batteries will have to be charged using coal.

                3. Do you have any sources for the daily patterns of consumption in Spain? I’ve never seen a country with an early morning peak in power consumption: it’s either in the afternoon (A/C dominated) or the evening (residential heat, etc dominated).

                   And, I’ve never seen wind production with substantially lower averages at night: do you have a source for that?

             2. So you don’t have any data to back up your assertions then. No cost benefit analysis or the like. In that case, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

                1. Well, I think it’s a good idea to think things through for yourself. But, if an authority is needed, here’s one article. A bit of searching would find many more.

                   Legal Fight Pits Sellers of Energy Against Buyers

                   “Over the past few years, the federal government has nurtured the growth of an odd kind of player in the energy markets: companies that recruit consumers to unplug themselves when electricity use is high, in exchange for a price break.

                   The companies have been embraced by electric companies and system operators who say they have helped make service more reliable, and even helped avoid rolling blackouts during heat waves.

                   The approach has also lowered costs for all customers, experts and executives say, as utilities have needed to buy less of the most expensive power to meet peak needs.

                   “This market had been doing really well and functioning efficiently for quite some time,” said Craig C. Goodman, president of the National Energy Marketers Association, whose members sell electricity to consumers, speaking of the demand-response arrangement.

                   But that could soon change. Two important cases have challenged the approach, and one of them has won a significant ruling.

                   This year, in a case brought by companies that own power plants — which lose income when price spikes are avoided — a court ruled that the federal government overstepped its bounds in creating a market for turning down the dials.

                   In addition, FirstEnergy, a large Ohio-based electric utility, has filed a separate complaint that could further stymie the market.

                   The cases have put two important players in the energy market on a collision course: those companies that meet higher demand in peak hours by making more power, and those that find a way to reduce the demand.”

                   http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/business/energy-environment/legal-fight-pits-sellers-of-energy-against-buyers.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

    4. The rule in Puerto Rico is an attempted poison pill, yes.

       The utilities are panicking because solar power is cheaper than fossil fuel power *and getting even cheaper*. Some of them are going along with the change (Xcel in Colorado), others are stupidly trying to live in the past (Puerto Rico, Arizona).

       The funny thing is that the poison pill won’t work. Battery prices are dropping fast. As a result, the *off-grid* option is going to be price-competitive in a few years.

       1. In a few years those of you who can afford it and have the space can install your panels and batteries and go completely off grid. That’s a real plus as long as you don’t ask for society to pay your costs.

          1. Fossil fuel generation creates enormous costs, paid for by others: health care, security costs, etc., etc.

             Distributed solar’s external costs are much smaller. Giving solar a small subsidy with net-metering is only reducing the imbalance. Allocating addtional costs to distributed solar would be a transparent protection/subsidy of the utility.

             1. Like I said, those of you who can afford it feel free to go fully off grid. I don’t like people freeloading on my dime.

                1. Fernando,

                   Just repeating stuff is…well..boring. And unconvincing.

                   Fossil fuels are highly subsidized. It would be nice to eliminate those subsidies, but in the meantime let’s *partly* level the playing field with net-metering, etc., i.e. those things you seem to suggest are “freeloading”.

                2. Fossil fuels aren’t subsidized in this galactic sector. You must have arrived from the Doradus cluster in recent weeks?

                3. Coal: occupational health costs, CO2, sulfur/acid rain, mercury in food, water consumption, adding up to $.18 per kWh ($345B/year):

                   “The United States’ reliance on coal to generate almost half of its electricity, costs the economy about $345 billion a year in hidden expenses not borne by miners or utilities, including health problems in mining communities and pollution around power plants, a study found.

                   Those costs would effectively triple the price of electricity produced by coal-fired plants, which are prevalent in part due to their low cost of operation, the study led by a Harvard University researcher found.

                   “This is not borne by the coal industry, this is borne by us, in our taxes,” said Paul Epstein, a Harvard Medical School instructor and the associate director of its Center for Health and the Global Environment, the study’s lead author.

                   “The public cost is far greater than the cost of the coal itself. The impacts of this industry go way beyond just lighting our lights.”

                   These costs are large even if you don’t accept that Climate Change is costly – the cost table on page 92 (20 of 26) includes 3.06 cents for CO2, only 17% of the total.

                   http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resources_files/epstein_full%20cost%20of%20coal.pdf

26. Another Oil Causality … GE CEO’s overhaul slips on oil
    https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/572992386747510785/photo/1

27. Summary of Weekly Petroleum Data for the Week Ending February 27, 2015

    http://ir.eia.gov/wpsr/wpsrsummary.pdf

    “U.S. commercial crude oil inventories (excluding those in the Strategic Petroleum
    Reserve) increased by 10.3 million barrels from the previous week”” WOW

    but

    “Over the last four weeks,
    motor gasoline product supplied averaged about 8.7 million barrels per day, up by 4.0%
    from the same period last year. Distillate fuel product supplied averaged over 4.2 million
    barrels per day over the last four weeks, up by 16.8% from the same period last year. Jet
    fuel product supplied is up 12.9% compared to the same four-week period last year”

    Diesel up 16.8% , I know it was cold this week, but it was cold last year as well.
    Jet A1 up 12.9%, were the planes grounded this week last year, or are there that many more planes in the air?
    Some pretty wild numbers, swinging both ways. Hard to make too much sense of it all?

    1. My previous comments on the topic:

       http://peakoilbarrel.com/bakken-data-tells-us/comment-page-1/#comment-500461

       It would be very helpful if anyone had access to condensate prices, so that we could plot the ratio of the price of condensate to the WTI spot crude oil price, by month.

       1. Jeffrey, try to find a table with price corrections for oil quality. Also, there are zillions of condensates. I have worked in a field which produced a 44 degree API condensate, looked like dark beer, sweet, and we stabilized and blended it to make a 33 degree API which fetched the highest price in the world for a tanker load. To us, that 44 was worth a premium.

28. Diesel up 16.8% , I know it was cold this week, but it was cold last year as well.
    Jet A1 up 12.9%, were the planes grounded this week last year, or are there that many more planes in the air?
    Stockpiling because of the low costs?

    -Lloyd

    1. Aaagh…even with the edit function, sometimes you still screw up.
       This was supposed to be in reference to Toolpush’s comment March 4, 2015 at 10:43 am.

       -Lloyd

    2. Remember that the NYMEX is not diesel. It is heating oil, settled (with delivery) in the NY harbor.

       1. Clueless,

          I don’t believe anybody mentioned NYMEX in this thread, but since you have in an ambiguous manner.
          FYI
          http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11211#

          Historically, standard futures contracts for heating oil allowed for delivery of product with sulfur content up to 2,000 parts per million (0.2%). Beginning with the May 1, 2013 contract, the New York Mercantile Exchange (Nymex) switched its specification for the heating oil futures contract to the ultra-low sulfur diesel specification (ULSD). The ULSD contract is a distillate that contains less than 15 parts per million (ppm) of sulfur, the same specification used for most diesel fuel. Many states in the Northeast require the switch over the next several years (see chart) to lower sulfur heating oil. Switching the contract to reference ULSD lets market participants more easily hedge their distillate investments.

          So heating oil is now the same as on road diesel at 15ppm SO2, instead of 2000ppm as it was in the past.

29. NOW IT’S OFFICIAL. The world is set for more than 2 degrees warming
    \
    The Paris Climate Talks and the Failure of States

    Gabriel Levy

    The officials in charge of the United Nations climate talks say that no
    deal will be done in Paris in December (COP21) to avoid dangerous global
    warming. After preparatory negotiations in Geneva, Switzerland, this month,
    Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on
    Climate Change (UNFCCC), confirmed that the target set previously, of
    limiting warming to 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels, would
    be missed. Figueres had already said, in December, after a round of talks
    in Lima, Peru, that “the sum total of efforts [in Paris] will not be able
    to put us on the path for two degrees. […] We are not going to get there
    with the Paris agreement … We will get there over time.” This month she
    reiterated that the Paris talks would only “set the pathway for an orderly
    planned transition over time to a low-carbon society.”

    The EU climate commissioner, Miguel Arias Canete, claimed that “you cannot
    say it is a failure” if, collectively, the world’s governments abandoned
    the 2 degrees target, as long as there is “an ongoing process.”

    Click here to continue reading:
    http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1087.php#continue

    Share on Facebook:
    http://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.socialistproject.ca%2Fbullet%2F1087.php

    Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/socialism21

    1. This set of comments could be wrong. The problem I see is that Figueres is a diplomat, born in a very rich family, and with no science training. This means she’s in a little over her head. She’s the wrong person for the job.

       Things could turn out fine if climate sensitivity is lower than what she has been told. And then there’s peak fossil fuels and geoengineering. Some of us can see a different outcome.

       1. Attack the messenger.

       2. I think it’s fair to say that the climate sensitivity could also be higher that what she has been told. She’s from a rich family and unqualified after all.

       3. why would you even mention something like geoengineering if you don’t think climate change is a serious problem? It seems like you are hedging your bets.

          1. Chilyba, I didn’t ever write climate change wasn’t a problem. I wrote I don’t think it’s nearly as bad as some like to paint. And I think an oil peak is a much more serious problem. My worry arises because I think a lot of this solar power and battery peddling is fantasy.

             I see more information and reports which tell me climate sensitivity is lower than the IPCC says, I don’t buy the runaway climate BS, and I do think geoengineering needs research, and ASAP.

             I see individuals like Figueres, who parrot the religious mantra coming from our dearly departed IPCC chairman, to be more of a hindrance than help. She’s worthless, a chick whose whole life was leveraged from her fathers money and fame. She lives off her last name.

             1. “I see more information and reports which tell me climate sensitivity is lower than the IPCC says, I don’t buy the runaway climate BS, and I do think geoengineering needs research, and ASAP. ”

                Ok. But this statement still doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Unless you mean that we need to research geoengineering ASAP because you might be wrong about your prediction of climate sensitivity. You might be wrong, right? I’m pretty sure that I might be wrong.

                1. Nah, I’m always right and I can see the future.

                   Just kidding. Of course I could be wrong. My precautionary principle dictates we research geoengineering, energy storage, and fusion power like crazy. I hereby nominate myself to be IPCC president so I can steer things in the right direction.

                2. Not funny.

          2. And then there’s peak fossil fuels and geoengineering.
             Fernando is more than happy to allow future generations to clean up his mess.

             Why is it that all those who believe global warming is real should do nothing and wait or absolute proof they are right (which, of course, would be to watch the planet’s ecology disintegrate without suggesting any change, thereby proving our position) while those with ridiculous, untried, anti-democratic pipedreams like planet-wide geo-engineering should be given a pass? If the models for climate change are unreliable, how can the models for geo-engineering be accurate enough to justify going forward? And how are you going to get world-wide consensus on a process that affects 7 billion people?

             1. Why is it ridiculous? It’s actually a very scientific approach. I just want to have experiments to toss stuff in the ocean to see what happens.

                1. Gee wiz, Dr. Evil, Like what?

                2. Please call me Fernando. I am hoping to see lots of happy coral polyps, singing hymns of praise because ocean pH is up to 8.2, cause the stuff we dumped got rid of the CO2. In this case I want a big raise, and a marble statue of Michael Mann kneeling in front of Judith Curry greeting visitors to NOAA’s main office.

                3. Okay Fernando,

                   Your sense of humor shows clear signs of moral schizophrenia.*

                   *see http://peakoilbarrel.com/us-rig-count-location/comment-page-1/#comment-502422

                4. Have you considered a vacation in Kandahar? It’s known for its climate.

                5. Sorry, I don’t get your attempted joke.

                6. Things could turn out fine if climate sensitivity is lower than what she has been told.And then there’s peak fossil fuels and geoengineering. Some of us can see a different outcome.

                   You speak to geoengineering in general, not your pet project. You suggest the accepted climate science might be wrong. And some unstated postulation on “peak Fossil Fuels”, which could mean anything, good or bad.

                   That’s why it’s ridiculous. You throw out three concepts without connecting them or defining them, and say “There! Surely one of these steaming piles of crap will meet with your approval.” (that’s my translation of “Some of us can see a different outcome.“)

                   Well, it won’t.

                   It’s ridiculous because you can’t suck and blow at the same time.

                   If the technology to model climate is good enough to approve the effects of any type of geoengineering, they must be good enough to look at the entire system. If not, you’re just guessing.

                   Which makes it- ta da!- a “ridiculous, untried, anti-democratic pipedream(.)” To summarize, it’s ridiculous because it’s really, really ill-considered.

                7. You are wrong. A geoengineering experiment doesn’t require a climate model. All we need is a big budget.

                8. I’m not wrong, because I was not discussing, and have not expressed an opinion on, geoengineering experimentation. This is a shoddy rhetorical technique (if it even qualifies as a “technique”) trying to distract the audience from the fact that your pants are on fire.

                   I was not discussing geoengineering experimentation. It was not mentioned in the post that started this exchange: you introduced it as a non-sequitur answer to my pointing out that
                   a geoengineering implementation is a “ridiculous, untried, anti-democratic pipedream(.)” Let’s go back to your original post:“And then there’s peak fossil fuels and geoengineering. “ Does it say you want to do a study? No, it says that geoengineering is a potential answer.

                   I went over this in my last post: I said”You speak to geoengineering in general, not your pet project. ” While it’s possible you have some kind of reading disability that causes you to miss these things, it’s more likely you choose to ignore it when people tell you to restrict your argument to the topic at hand. Probably due to your being a weaselly denier, and a bully. I’m sure you find it fun to waste my time, especially since it is so much easier to just throw shit out than to keep your facts straight and fight fair.

                   Of course, if Alzheimer’s is setting in and you can’t remember to go back and check the chain of argument, tell me, and I’ll cut you some slack.

                9. Hi Fernando,

                   A geoengineering experiment sounds like a really bad idea to most intelligent people.

                   So we do experiments which may do irreparable damage to the ecosystem and if they do in fact make matters worse, then we do more expriments and hope for a better result? Eventually we hope that we can just move to a new planet after the Earth becomes too damaged to support human life.

                   Is that the general plan?

                   Sounds much easier than trying to solve the problem of intermittent solar and wind power 🙂

    2. This is not news.

30. Shale drillers starting to fall like flies – here are the next 3 on the cab rank – American Eagle Energy, BPZ Resources and Quicksilver Resources

    ”American Eagle Energy Corp. didn’t make a $9.8 million payment to bondholders due Monday, as the oil-and-gas company considers its current liquidity situation.In addition, the company has hired two financial advisers to help it assess options during the 30-day grace period it has now entered with bondholders, American Eagle announced Monday.

    American Eagle is the third oil-and-gas company to recently enter a grace period with bondholders after skipping payments as persistent low oil-and-gas prices have hurt a number of companies that produce these commodities.

    BPZ Resources Inc. didn’t repay $62 million in bonds at maturity on Monday, and Quicksilver Resources Inc. missed a $13.6 million payment on its bonds less than two weeks ago. Each said it might need to file for chapter 11 bankruptcy.”

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/american-eagle-energy-skips-interest-payment-1425409042

    1. tra la tra la.

       ZH has a lead story of a Fed spreadsheet showing shale to be a huge part of national GDP and downshifting GDP projections because of shale’s smash. They will act.

       1. It’s curious that the Euro and Brent price are currently down, but WTI is up by 2%, at 2:00 PM Eastern time.

          1. Against the dollar, too. Algo’ed on demand. It’s beyond curious, but after 5 yrs it’s best to accept all of it is pretense and there is no market.

             1. “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

                “…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

                When the map loses all reference to reality, does this mean we are fundamentally lost?

                …Perhaps there is something to be said about Futilitist’s DENIAL anti-mantric, maybe shuckled.

                1. “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
                   ~ Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

          2. I prefer longer term measurements before wondering. I am not sure, and I am not going to try to find out, but go back 30 days and look at the WTI and Brent spread and compare to $/Euro movement. I vaguely think that the spread increased by more than any currency change. So, maybe just a retracement.
             I probably should not post when I do not know for sure – but, I just do not recall the WTI/Brent spread being $10-$11 a month ago.

             1. Best not to lose the focus.

                The issue is the Atlanta Fed is modeling national GDP with shale as a larger proportion than has been noted by anyone (other than the illuminati).

       2. Fed will act but it will be too late for shale oil and gas. Fed needs a few negative GDP reports plus a few months of shitty jobs numbers and maybe a few crappy CPI numbers. They don’t have the cover to loosen policy at the moment. At the moment the narrative is “Shadow of a crisis has passed”. all is great! That narrative has to fall apart before Fed changes direction.

          1. A bit. Data dependent and all that, but bailing out shale doesn’t require QE. They can just backstop the loans.

             1. I think were in the early stages of a massive credit collapse. Anybody who borrowed in US denominated debt since 2009ish might be in trouble. All the US corporate buybacks funded by cheap debt. Shale oil and gas. Some 9 to 10 trillion dollars in US denominated debt used to buy foreign assets in search yield(dollar carry trade). Without further QE this shit starts to unwind. Without further QE credit collapse is certain. Not enough dollars in the system for everyone who borrowed in dollars to pay their debt back + interest. Banks aren’t creating enough bank credit(loans) to offset the decline in credit money that’s no longer being generated by the Fed.

                1. Hi Bryan.

                   I think you are correct. And it is only a matter of a short time before the coming credit collapse cascades into complete social collapse and die-off. As Jay Hanson would ask: “How could it be otherwise?”

                   Today the Dow closed down 278.94 points (-1.54%). I’m not saying it is crashing yet, but eventually it will. If did crash next week, though, we would be in whole different world. People don’t get how close we are to the edge.

             2. I don’t see the distinction. Backstopping the loans requires actual hard currency in this case. Okay, keystrokes on a keyboard anyway. To press the keys you need the QE program in place. At least, if the Fed starts pressing the keys with no announced QE we have entered yet another new phase.

31. More on balance sheets and PV10 *looking in the direction of Shallow Sand*

    The Price of Oil Is About to Blow a Hole in Corporate Accounting
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-04/oil-at-95-a-barrel-discovered-in-sec-rules-on-reserves

    ”This year tells a different story. The average price on the first trading days of January, February and March was $51.28 a barrel. That means a lot of pain — and writedowns — are in store when drillers’ first-quarter numbers are announced in April and May.
    “It has postponed the reckoning,” said Julie Hilt Hannink, head of energy research at New York-based CFRA, an accounting adviser.”
    –
    ”Continental provides one example of how much the price move matters. The company’s Feb. 3 press release announcing the $22.8 billion figure included a disclaimer saying the estimate didn’t represent market value.
    Three weeks later, Continental published more detail in its annual financial report to the SEC. Using current prices instead of the SEC-prescribed $95 a barrel would erase $13.8 billion, or 61 percent, from the value of Continental’s oil and natural gas properties. It would also mean that 10 percent of the company’s reserves, the equivalent of 135 million barrels, would be too expensive to pump with prices where they are, the company said in the filing. .”

    1. Thank you Rune! They are starting to take notice. Surprised it took as long as it did. Maybe the $$ for more wells is drying up after all.

       1. Rune: I need to give you the credit due you. I am sure it was a guest post of yours from a few months ago that got me thinking about the debt and potentially massive write downs in the event of a price collapse.

          I think an examination of debt to PV10, at end of Q1 2015, will be a shocker, although it should not be.

          Also, my discussion of bank credit as a percentage of PV10 is from personal experience. I am going to research to see if there are published bank lending standards for oil and gas. If anyone has links to same, let me know. Thanks!

       2. I first started to draw attention to the funding issue (in BakkenND) in the fall of 2012 at The Oil Drum with the chart shown, now updated to reflect estimates as of December 2014.
          Growth in LTO extraction during 2011 and 2012 was driven by a high oil price and massively turbocharged with external/additional funding, primarily debt.
          As from 2013 and while the oil price remained high, the extraction level reached a level where organic net cash flow could pay for new wells and continued growth in LTO extraction.
          Note how that changed by year end 2014. The estimates in the chart do not include wells drilled and not completed.
          Going forward it is the shape of the extraction profile (decline) for a portfolio of wells (company) and the oil price that will reveal how well companies are able to carry their debt load.
          In general terms and back of the envelope estimates suggests that companies that are heavily exposed to LTO will start to struggle if their ratio of gross debt to annual net cash flow is above 3.
          The business model for LTO is very sensitive to debt overhang and the oil price.

          

    2. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-05/the-price-of-oil-is-down-so-why-is-production-still-going-up-

32. Lots of discussion about the magazine Nature above. Seems as if an study has shown that Mega-droughts are on their way for the western US. Here is a portion of the article:
    Decades-long droughts are likely to ravage the US Southwest and Great Plains within the next century, a study suggests. This drying could be worse than any other in the past 1,000 years, including a ‘megadrought’ seven centuries ago that helped drive an ancient civilization to collapse.

    The work, published on 12 February in Science Advances1, is among the first to rigorously compare the climate record of the deep past with long-term projections of today’s warming climate.

    “These future droughts are not only going to be bad compared to what we’ve experienced over the historical period, but also really bad compared to the past millennium,” says Benjamin Cook, a drought researcher at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, who led the work. “It’s going to be a pretty much fundamental shift.”

    http://www.nature.com/news/future-us-megadroughts-set-to-be-the-worst-in-1-000-years-1.16916

    So much to look forward to, guess peak oil, peak coal and peak people did not happen soon enough. So where are all the people in the Southwest going to live? What is going to feed them? Guess the border problem won’t be a problem anymore.

    1. I have a principle (among many): Do not bet on any predictions that can only be determined if they are right or wrong after you die. It is easy to possibly become an unwitting cheerleader for such predictions. For example, your first sentence in part states: “study has shown that Mega-droughts are on the way for the western US.” Sounds pretty definite – “has shown” and “are”. So, if someone you know trusts everything you say – maybe they uproot and move.
       The next couple of sentences from your post include “likely;” “a study suggests;” and “could be worse than any other.” Kind of vague – “likely,” “suggests” and “could be.”
       Seattle has 2nd and goal from the one yard line with 60 seconds left against New England. Studies have shown that it is “likely” that with Marshawn Lynch Seattle will score a touchdown, which then leads to other “studies that strongly suggest” that Seattle will win the game and thus this “could be” their 2nd Super Bowl win in a row. One time out and one play later, wrong. At least we did not have to wait 100 years to find out. I am not sure what “within the ‘next’ century” means. It possibly could mean by the end of 2199. But, I will be generous and assume for purposes of this example, that they might mean within the next 100 years. If not, then it will take 185 years to find out if they are right.

       1. You sound like a frustrated wanna-be grade school teacher who can’t get enough of correcting papers. Well, at least you have a principle.
          If you have been on this planet for a while now and head out of the sand, you know the drought is already starting.

       2. You do realize that you are quoting the article and not my own writing, I hope? You seem to be a little confused on that.

          1. Did you read my post? I was differentiating between the first 2 sentences of your post and then what you said came from the article after the “:”
             Are you claiming that the very first 2 sentences of your post are a quote from the article?

    2. Allan, if some day you are presented with a very complex computer model prediction you should request a set of diagnostic plots and comparisons. In this case it’s important to check if these models they use had the ability to predict precipitation and humidity over the last 30 years.

       Nature publishing tends to issue papers which don’t pass this simple smell test. Their peer review process allows low quality work to come through, and I see a lot of what they do as a mill to run papers which can be used for quoting material and in political speeches.

       1. Denier, denier, pants on fire.

          1. He’s not a denier, he’s just smarter than all of the thousands of dedicated scientist using all of the latest high technology instrumentation available on earth and in space.

             1. He is not just smarter. He is also more prolific. He is all over the internet with this useless crap. He even has fans:

                “Do check out the ever active sceptic Fernando Leanme on the Guardian. He is a persistent pain in their neck, he survives banning by being very polite. I cannot do this.”
                ~http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/04/guardian-writer-alexander-white-beclowns-himself-by-using-a-paid-pr-firm-as-a-factual-source-for-climate/

                “It’s been moderated away. Take it as a Goebbel Warning.

                Fernando Leanme is practically on his own defending free speech there. He says:

                ‘Frankly I find these words incredibly disgusting. I´m a refugee from a regime which censured the media, abused us, insulted us, and eventually jailed us if we expressed any tendency not to follow the government line.
                So I have a very strong aversion to censorship. And the idea of lumping people in groups, insulting them, and otherwise demeaning them me makes me vomit.’

                Go and give him a hand.”

                “GC
                Fernando’s doing alright. If I can be of any help – he must be in real trouble!
                I suppose I could hold his hair back…”
                ~http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/1/4/guardian-is-totalitarianism-the-way-forward.html

                “Scientists are man’s best friend. But they do have to be treated properly and taught to behave as if they were regular folk. This includes teaching them how to be more useful to their superiors: engineers, economists and lawyers.”
                ~Fernando Leanme

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5wd5fA_2sE

                1. I was chuckling like Fernando’s companion in the background. Well done, Fernando and thanks for sharing, Futilitist. By the way, where is your drumming video? I want to see that again. ^u^
                   And how is the drumming going incidentally? And also, now that I recall, what happened at Doomstead Diner when they put you in some kind of ridiculous virtual isolation chamber?
                   I agree with the free speech thing and vehemently resent authoritarianism, whether online or in real life.
                   At the same time, though, perhaps a certain level of honoring the forum warrants some consideration.

                2. I did not come here to do this, but I believe it is necessary. I think that what I am doing is honoring this forum.

                3. Caelan, that was by far my best video. If you want to try some of my interview series:

                   http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/2015/02/i-interview-prince-of-whales.html

                   http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/2015/01/interview-with-oilman.html

             2. Jer, I’ve made my living teaching very smart people how to run computer models, and trying to find out when they cheated or made mistakes. And I was paid very well to do it because I’m incredibly hard nosed. Those thousands of scientists you mention don’t really exist. The climate models are developed with shared code and logic. And nowadays a climate model in most locations has to look like the others, or it doesn’t get published much.

                Unfortunately, not a single one of those models can deliver a decent regional precipitation match. We are seeing a huge amount of bullshit coming from that particular group of scientists. They need to be taught a bit of ethics and how to improve their communication skills.

                1. Fernando,

                   You are a doubt-mongerer. You practice a quite vile trade.

                   Given the depth and breadth of the scientific evidence and the consequeces of inaction it is not unreasonable to assume that at some point the likes of you will be held culpable and legally responsible for the inaction and delay you have incited.

                2. Hi Aws.

                   It is time to start calling deniers what they really are.

                   Murderers.

                   http://peakoilbarrel.com/us-rig-count-location/comment-page-1/#comment-502422

                3. Are “Deniers” the murderers, or is it really anyone that uses fossil fuels?

                   And when was the last time that YOU used fossil fuels?

                4. Hi John.

                   Tu quoque.

                   Sure, everyone who uses fossil fuels is guilty to some extent, but some people are much more guilty than others.

                   Deniers are more guilty than non-deniers because non-deniers want to try to change our unsustainable ways, and deniers want to stop that effort, no matter what. They are willing to lie and cheat to stop people from knowing the truth so that no positive change can ever happen.

                   That is why the debate with deniers has to be seen as a moral issue rather than a scientific one. We are trying to stop a murder in progress. It is time to turn up the heat on climate science denial.

                   Does this change in debate tactics scare you? I sure hope so.

                5. Aws, it seems to me some people treat this as a religion. I happen to be agnostic. I suspect some people are getting hysteria over the topic. Relax. It’s just a science/engineering/economics/politics problem.

                6. Wrong. You are the religious one. Quit trying to project.

                   It was a “science/engineering/economics/politics problem.” Those days are over. It has now become a moral issue affecting every person on this planet.

                   Your position is clearly immoral. You are aiding and abetting mass murder.

                7. I’ll bet that the computer you are typing on is powered by fossil fuels. Therefore by your own logic, YOU are aiding and abetting mass murder.

                   You remind me of Al Gore flying around in a Leer Jet, whilst decrying the horrors of CO2.

                8. “Therefore by your own logic, YOU are aiding and abetting mass murder.”

                   Not if I am trying to stop the mass murder, and you are trying to stop me.

                   Here is the logic. Think of it as an indictment:

                   1) If we continue BAU we are doomed

                   That is what the science actually says, despite your anti-science denial.

                   2) People want to change BAU

                   That just makes sense morally speaking. If BAU leads to our own self destruction, then BAU is MURDER. And we all know that murder is wrong.

                   3) Deniers want to stop change to BAU

                   If deniers succeed in stopping us from preventing imminent harm to our planet and ourselves, then deniers are guilty of aiding and abetting murder. Therefore:

                   4) DENIERS are MURDERERS
                   ——

                   I love the simple logic of a good moral argument. 🙂

                   When deceitful anti-science denial begins to trump the best available science, it is time to be practical and simplify the argument considerably. I like the way this boils down.

                   Your move.

                9. You must not be “trying to stop it” very hard, if you are still using fossil fuels. Certainly the technology exists to live off the grid today. Our own use of fossil fuels is the one thing that everyone does have control over. Perhaps if you really are that concerned about CO2 increases, you should consider your own use of fossil fuels first.

                10. Wrong answer.

                    You just tried that one. Calling you a murderer already trumps that answer by a mile, in terms of emotional impact that can sway others. I am making a real moral argument, from the heart. I really believe in what I say. You are just grasping at straws.

                    I’ll give you a hint (and I really shouldn’t). Lose the deception and argue what you really believe. From the heart. No tricks.

                    I want to protect humanity and the natural world which we are all supposed to share. I consider it an emergency.

                    What are you really trying to accomplish? Why are you in this fight? What are you trying to protect?

                    I ask very seriously. I am not trying to trick you. If anybody gets the answer to this one, we can all move toward a real understanding in terms of the big picture.

                    Your core argument is also a moral one.

                    Don’t be afraid to express it.

                11. “…I’m incredibly hard nosed”

                    Yet you advocate serious investment in fusion energy as a solution to peak oil? I can’t take you seriously.

             3. Or perhaps just more honest.

       2. The paper was not published in Nature. Apparently you did not read the article.

          1. I think it was published in Nature, that is if you are talking about the link in your own post. But I must say I have a much higher view of Nature than does Fernando. I think Nature is one of the most prestigious publications in the world. And their peer review process is right up there with Science, Scientific American and Science News, all good publications.

             Future US megadroughts set to be the worst in 1,000 years
             Nature International weekly journal of science

             1. I agree, both Nature and Science are reputable scientific publications.
                Some people think they have a political bent, but it is actually the opposite since science and academicians only appear political to those who exclude large areas of thought and reality from their world view.

                The paper was published in Science Advances, article about it was published in Nature.
                Unprecedented 21st century drought risk in the American Southwest and Central Plains
                Here is the link:
                http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400082

    3. Allan H,

       Always quote from the paper, not from an article about the paper. The paper was published in Science, not in Nature.

       1. First of all, the quote is directly from the author. A remedial reading course might help you there. Secondly, you are an adult, follow it up yourself and stop assuming that you have authority to direct or control another person. You have no such control, I know it is frustrating and probably ego bruising but possibly you might start showing some control over yourself and pursue your idea. One more bubble burster, I never said the paper was published in Science, I said the article was published in Nature. Remedial reading further recommended.

          1. Allan H, if you’re responding to me,

             I was referring to the first link you posted, at 2:47 on the 4th. Too often, what is said in an article about a peer-reviewed paper is not the same as what the original paper contains, especially when the article is published in the MSM (not the case in this instance) where editors write headlines.

             For all: Please mention who it is you’re talking to. It gets messy.

             1. Really, you are kidding right. The comment is just below yours and inset as a reply. You really are not sure who I was responding to? Wow.

                And yes, it is quite clear who and to which comment you were referring to. No confusion on my part. Still trying to give me orders, hopeless.

33. Ron,

    The timed edit function is a great addition.

    I have another suggestion…

    I notice that when one clicks on a link here it leaves your blog page and goes to the linked page.

    On other sites when one clicks on links, a separate tab is opened in the browser so both the original site and the linked site are both open.

    That is useful when commenting because one can see both links at the same time by simply going back and forth between browser tabs.

    Anyway, maybe I’m doing something wrong or maybe it isn’t an issue for anyone else or maybe it is a big pain in the ass to add this feature or….

    With or without, thank you for a very informative and interesting blog.

    1. That’s a browser setting.

    2. ezrydermike, I have no control over that. As Watcher says, I think that is a browser setting. However holding the shift key down while clicking will always cause the link to be opened in another window, leaving the original page open also.

34. Fossil fuels are expensive, risky and dirty. We should replace them with cheaper and better alternatives ASAP.

    “Illustrative calculations indicate environmental damages are $330-970 billion yr−1 for current US electricity generation (~14–34¢ per kWh for coal, ~4–18¢ for gas) and $3.80 (−1.80/+2.10) per gallon of gasoline ($4.80 (−3.10/+3.50) per gallon for diesel). ”

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-015-1343-0

    1. From up the page:

       “To purposely and unnecessarily increase the costs of living, reduce our standards of living, and kill our entire economic system”
       ~Jerry O

       “This is a good example of why it’s important to clarify that alternatives to oil and coal are in fact cheaper and better.”
       ~Nick G

       Nick G reveals that he is a propagandist.

       And then, inspired by Jerry O, he immediately runs down here to post his propaganda.

       This illustrates the viral nature of denial.

       DENIAL is a VIRUS.

       1. Denial, like what you’re spreading?

          Fact is that standards of living are higher with solar power. Just a simple fact. If you’ve got the money, I advise you try it. If you don’t, sucks to be you. 🙂

    2. Y’all alternative wackos don’t go about this right and do yourselves damage.

       Rather then try to make the losing case that you move all that food from point A to point B by next year with no diesel trucks — why don’t you demand that the Fed print up some money and give it to the effort. You can then show economic success.

       And to prove that, let me remind all and sundry that the US Treasury sends a check to the Fed to pay monthly interest on all those bonds on the Fed balance sheet, acquired during QE 1-3. The Fed then takes that check and returns it to Treasury. Treasury declares it revenue and adjusts the annual budget deficit accordingly.

       You can do this, too!

       1. ” the losing case that you move all that food from point A to point B by next year with no diesel trucks”

          I haven’t noticed anyone making that argument. It might take a few years. But, it doesn’t matter: trucks are only about 1/8 of oil consumption- most of it is personal transportation.

          1. Nick – You always propose a future where everyone is constantly becoming more wealthy in order to make all of these quantum shifts you propose. The reality is just the opposit.

             1. Fortunately, these alternatives are actually cheaper than the status quo.

                For instance, EVs:  they’re the cheapest cars on the road even without tax credits.  With tax credits, they’re insanely cheap.  Let’s see.  The average car costs about 58 cents per mile to drive.

                IRS Average New Car Cost per mile: 57.5 cents per mile.

                The Leaf, without tax credit, is the cheapest car you can find to own and operate:

                Total Cash Price $25,327
                5 Year True Cost to Own: 28,079
                Cost per mile: 37.4 cents per mile.

                A typical small car like the Honda Civic Sedan is more expensive:

                Total Cash Price $21,644
                5 Year True Cost to Own: 36,154
                Cost per mile: 48.2 cents per mile.

                And a Chevy Volt, a car without any compromise because it can run on gas, is less expensive than the average car even without the tax credit:

                Total Cash Price $31,500
                5 Year True Cost to Own: 40,129
                Cost per mile: 53.5 cents per mile.
                http://www.edmunds.com/tco.html 1/27/15

                If we subtract just the Federal credit of $7,500 (and several states have credits as well), that subtracts 10 cents per mile. The Leaf costs less than half of the average car, and the Volt is substantially less expensive than the Civic. 

                And, you very rarely go to the gas station, and it’s much more fun to drive!

                1. Mr. Sunshine,

                   Gee wiz, those do sound inexpensive and fun and all. But none of your alternatives are cheaper than driving the cars that people currently have. Any imagined transition would realistically take decades in a good economy (see the Hirsch Report). Jef just pointed out that we don’t have a good economy. Nor can one be expected in the future. So the timeline for any useful transition is just too long to do us any good.

                   Why doesn’t that make sense to you?

                   Are you suggesting that we don’t need to worry so much about the timeline because we don’t actually face a crisis that requires a rapid transition?

                2. 50% of vehicle miles traveled come from vehicles less than six years old. Turning over the fleet wouldn’t take that long. That’s one of the basic flaws of the Hirsch report.

                3. i do not doubt it, but where does that stat come from?

                4. US Dept of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

                   They show average VMT by years of ownership. If I have time l’ll look for a link.

                5. Hirsch also said that oil would be $500/barrel by 2013. That didn’t happen either.

                6. FYI: Nick drives a gasoline powered vehicle and does not own a PV system. Nor does he practice anything he preaches. I am pretty sure he just a kid trying to irritate people. The best option is to ignore!

                7. No, I use electric trains for almost all of my daily travel. I do have an old gas car for the odd errand: a little less than 1,000 miles per year.

                   Both $-ROI and E-ROI (e.g., embedded energy) dictate keeping the old car.

                   I live in a highly walkable neighborhood, and have insulated to the point where I don’t need heat down to about 2C.

                   I have a bit of PV, but like most people who live in the city I have to rely on others for power production.

                   What have you done?

                8. “…Price $25,327… Cost to Own: 28,079… more expensive: Total Cash Price $21,644… Cost to Own: 36,154… Cash Price $31,500… Cost to Own: 40,129… $7,500…” ~ Nick G

                   “Only after the last tree has been cut down,
                   only after the last river has been poisoned,
                   only after the last fish has been caught,
                   only then will you realize that money cannot be eaten.”
                   ~ The Cree People

                9. Thanks for this good info. I will stick it on the windshield of my Leaf when it joins a Tesla, Volt and E-tractor at a local sustainability group meeting coming up this week.

                   You could also add that EV’s have the highest user satisfaction rating.

                   All of that is why I expect an explosion of sales when people start to get the news.

                10. Tesla is still production-limited (selling them months before they’re manufactured).

                    I expect an explosion of sales once enough electric cars are being *manufactured*. (The prices will also go down due to economies of scale.)

                11. Nick,

                    Last time we talked, you were still driving a gas burner. Have you bought a Leaf yet?

                    The biggest bargain currently is for a used Leaf, coming off a lease, since the residual values have crashed, as fuels prices fell. I believe that Nissan has improved the 2015 battery pack, for hot weather performance. A used Leaf + an improved battery (apparently around $5,500) might make a lot of sense.

                    Resale Prices Tumble on Electric Cars
                    Tax credits on new models, worries about battery life undercut efforts to peddle used Nissan Leaf

                    http://www.wsj.com/articles/resale-prices-tumble-on-electric-cars-1424977378

                    In December and January, for instance, the average selling price of a 2012 Nissan Leaf at auction was about $10,000, nearly a quarter of the car’s original list price and down $4,700 from a year earlier, according to NADA’s guide. Three-year-old Volts, a plug-in car with a backup gasoline motor, were selling for an average $13,000 at auction in January, down from about $40,000 excluding the federal tax credit.

                    Resale values “have been crushed on these cars,” said Chris Coleman, co-founder of Carlypso, an online used-car shopping site. “As a used-car value, they’re an absolute bargain.”

                    . . . . About 85% of Leafs registered last year were leased; for the Volt, that figure is closer to 49%, according to IHS Automotive. NADA estimates 25,000 Volts and Leafs will hit the used-car market in 2015, nearly double the number in 2014.

                    On some Volts and Leafs, the finance companies bet residual values would hold anywhere from $4,000 to $6,600 higher than their current wholesale price, according to data compiled by Carlypso The significant plunge in end-of-lease value has caught the industry by surprise. “This is sort of a new frontier,” said Eric Lyman, a vice president at Automotive Lease Guide, which provides residual value estimates that are used to calculate how to price a vehicle lease.

                    Article on battery issues:

                    http://www.torquenews.com/2250/replacement-battery-cost-bodes-well-used-leaf-market

                12. Imagine that. So it turns out they are vastly more expensive.

                13. Only if you’re one of those silly people who buy new cars, and keep them for a very short time.

                14. Watcher, The Leaf is a stealth golf cart disguised as a car. And, if you live in a cold place you can divide the expected battery life by two. Of course you don’t see many golfers hiking through the snow so you’d have to add that to your equation!

                15. Llamas caddy golfclubs in Montana. It was a growth industry for about 6 months 10 years ago.

                16. I live in a very walkable area, and my main vehicle is an electric train.

                    I keep an old ICE for random uses that trains don’t do well – about 1,000 miles per year. The cost of a new car (as well as the embedded energy) dictate keeping the old car.

                    Although, those used Leafs and Volts are starting to look mighty attractive…

                17. Nick,

                    Some food for your EV religion. “The fleet of plug-in electric vehicles in Norway is the largest per capita in the world and Oslo is recognized as the EV capital of the world. In March 2014, Norway became the first country where over one in every 100 passenger cars is a plug-in electric, out of a fleet of over 2.52 million passenger cars. Norway’s fleet of EVs is also the cleanest in the world as almost 100% of the electricity generated in the country comes from hydro-power.”

                    EL is added to the license plates of electric cars in Norway to control the privileges electric vehicles are entitled to. There are controversies over this and my wife and I are diametrically opposed on this, as per usual.

                18. “On some Volts and Leafs, the finance companies bet residual values would hold anywhere from $4,000 to $6,600 higher than their current wholesale price, according to data compiled by Carlypso The significant plunge in end-of-lease value has caught the industry by surprise. “This is sort of a new frontier,” said Eric Lyman, a vice president at Automotive Lease Guide, which provides residual value estimates that are used to calculate how to price a vehicle lease.”

                    That don’t last. The lease prices in the dealership spreadsheets will get fixed quickly and dictate substantial increases in monthy payment upcoming. You can’t turn those things back in and have the dealership have to eat the lower resale value.

                    Pass along to the consumer.

                19. So now we have some REALLY cheap EVs on the market.

                20. The WSJ article quoted the wholesale auction price for used Leafs. On the CarMax website, 2012 Leafs are between about $13,000 and $15,000, retail.

                21. Curiously enough, Edmunds shows very little difference in the estimated five year True Cost to Own, between a 2012 Leaf SV ($26,000) and a 2014 Leaf SV ($27,000). Of course, the 2014 Leaf has the $7,500 tax credit. The 2012 purchase price was $14,000.

                    It seems to me that the bottom line is that personal transportation by car is just very expensive, whether it’s a gas burner or EV.

                    Edmunds puts a new/used Leaf at about $5,500 per year and a new Honda Fit at about $6,500 per year. A new Honda Accord is about $7,600 per year, and a new Honda Pilot SUV is about $9,000 per year (base models for Fit, Accord & Pilot).

                    I think that most people grossly underestimate the actual true cost of personal auto transportation.

                22. It’s true. Sadly, a lot of people are very afraid of negative judgements by their social circle if they don’t keep up with their new cars.

                    I think they’re very often mistaken – advertising is remarkably effective at fooling people.

                23. I guess that proves “Edmunds” doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

                24. Excluding the tax credit, the estimated true cost to own for a 2014 Leaf SV would be about $35,000*, or about $7,000 per year, versus $5,200 for a 2012 Leaf SV

                    Note that a 2012 Honda Fit has an estimated cost of $6,200 per year versus a 2015 Honda Fit (estimated $6,500 per year).

                    In any case, as noted above, whether one favors gas burners or EV’s, I think that most people drastically underestimate the actual cost of personal automobile transportation.

                    *For five years, assuming 15,000 miles/year

                25. If I wanted to tie up ten thousand bucks in a car I would buy an off lease Leaf in a heart beat as opposed to a conventional car in the same price class but I have never driven enough or made enough money on a REGULAR basis to afford a newish car. I get by just fine with clunkers and have never in my entire life made a car payment or spent enough on a car or truck to even consider borrowing the purchase money.

                    Regulars know I am something of a gear head and actually a pretty decent mechanic. If anybody wonders how good I own my own auto lift and four chest high roll around cabinets full of tools. I am at least as good as the average guy working in a garage except on electronics so I fix my own cars and trucks. If I can’t I get a friend who is a REALLY good mechanic to fix them for me.

                    A person who knows the values can occasionally buy a car or truck priced too cheap and drive it a while and resell it at a good profit. That is part of my personal business model. Hence I keep up with prices.

                    Now when the LAST gasoline SUPPLY crisis hit you could buy tricked out oversized pickups coming off lease or from people unable to make the payments on them four or five or on sme occasions even ten thousand bucks cheaper than usual.

                    I was scared silly of buying one myself but savvy used car dealers bought them up anytime they were really cheap.

                    They threw tags on them and drove them and in a little while the public got used to higher gas prices and they sold them at handsome profits.

                    Gasoline prices are in my opinion very likely to spike sharply within the next couple of years and three or four years at the most.

                    A well maintained LEAF bought today for ten grand and VERY WELL MAINTAINED – no dents no cigarette burns in the upholstery etc- will probably sell for ten grand three or four years from now when gasoline spikes again.

                    Unless it rusts away or you get tired of it there is no real reason a you couldn’t drive a Leaf for thirty or forty years with a few new batteries along the way. Swapping out a battery isn’t going to cost as much as a tuneup costs today in terms of labor.

                    And here is something else to think about.

                    A VOLT with a hundred fifty thousand miles of mostly short trip driving on it with a ” worn out” battery may still go ten or fifteen miles on the battery. That is enough to wipe out the need for gasoline for a lot of people on a day to day basis.

                    The gasoline engine WILL STILL BE JUST ABOUT NEW.

                    A well maintained Volt will probably last at least a hundred thousand miles longer than a comparable ice only car. Maybe two hundred thousand. WITHOUT a new battery.

                26. The Volt only uses about 70% of the battery, unlike the Leaf. I think you’re likely to still get 35 mile range at 150k mileage.

                27. “A well maintained Volt will probably last at least a hundred thousand miles longer than a comparable ice only car. Maybe two hundred thousand. ”

                    10 million lines of Code and 100 computers.
                    Was ist das ? N E I N D A N K E
                    http://www.wired.com/2010/11/chevy-volt-king-of-software-cars/
                    This crap must stop. Wanna buy a used space shuttle?
                    VW Dealer has been poking my door computer for 9 months now. A bumped door may total a second hand TDI Wagon since the freaking door computer must phone home to brain, else smart key switch randomly sets off all Alarms.
                    If you unplug the door brain.. car won’t start.
                    All cars post 2009 must have a chip key.
                    $7100 connector for a Smart EV?
                    http://evtv.me/2015/02/just-another-pretty-face/
                    Whatever car you get, they better makes piles of em, so there are parts.. but wait, smart parts transplants address must kiss with me autos brain. All parts soon to be Walking Dead Parts
                    Now Picture General Motors and Ford as the walking dead with all these firmware keys.
                    http://evtv.me/2015/02/apple-icar-can-primer-gevcuevic/
                    (- Walking Dead -)
                    Microsoft
                    Hewlett Packard
                    Dell Computer
                    General Motors
                    Ford
                    Cable Television
                    Chrysler
                    Toyota
                    All automobile dealers
                    All book stores
                    Network Television
                    Non-satellite radio stations

                28. Longtimber computers really are a pain in the ass when they give problems. I suppose you fail to note the irony that your VW is chock full of them.

                    A fully electric car may actually have less in the end given that they don’t need any computers associated with engine management.

                    If we are still driving the major manufacturers will be selling parts for their cars to keep them running. They can’t afford not to because the word gets around and stops people from buying.

                    People buy Hondas and Toyotas on the basis of resale value more than anything else.

                29. Swapping out a battery isn’t going to cost as much as a tuneup costs today in terms of labor.
                    OFM maybe I’m not understanding your comment here. Are you just pointing out that it doesn’t take that long to perform a battery replacement? I don’t even know if that’s true…. but given the $5000+ quote above for a new battery pack the whole bill sounds like more than enough for a new ICE engine.

          2. Nick and Watcher ,

             Just about the last thing I want to happen is for Joe Sixpack the plumber and his upwardly mobile daughter the CPA to get it in their heads that biofuels are ok and that we should just go the biofuel route when oil gets short.

             But we probably could produce enough biofuels to maintain truly essential truck based services if we had to without disrupting the economy and the country side TOO badly compared to what we are doing already.

             At least half the trucks on the road are hauling unnecessary junk anyway.Beyond that a substantial portion of the work done with trucks now can be shifted to electrified trains.

             Within a few more years the French are going to have a rail system that is oil free except for their maintenance trucks and lubricants.

             I am with you and Wimbi when it comes to the future of electric cars assuming Old Man Business As Usual doesn’t have a heart attack or stroke within the next ten years. Anybody who is now gray headed and who listened to his grand parents and great grand parents tell stories about the way life USED to be OUGHT to get it.

             I am a MASTER BULLSHITTER – as good as they come I do believe when I really get into it- Futilista will tell you the same! – and a world class jack of all trades. ”Master Jack of all trades” in a description that applies to just about any small farmer. A career in the usual sense was never my goal.

             If my Daddy had been an engineer instead of a farmer I would probably have majored in engineering rather than agriculture. But I have been working with machinery since I was a kid and watching it evolve.

             I would gladly be my last dime on electric car production growing exponentially from here on out excepting possibly for the duration of this current oil glut – which is not likely to last more than a year.

             Oil comes out of holes in the ground but the wind ain’t gonna quit blowing and the sun ain’t gonna quit shining. The battery problem is half licked already.

             We are either going to drive electric cars or quit driving cars.

             When oil gets to be in short enough supply Leviathan will see to it. Leviathan can’t pull electric cars out of a hat but Leviathan can certainly take control of the oil supply and ration it so as to HOPEFULLY ensure the survival of the country – and the survival of Leviathan as well.

             Now Leviathan will not last forever – but otoh if the astrophysicists are right neither will the universe as we know it. 😉

             1. Yeah.

                One thought: if the price of oil rises (even $5 per gallon would have a big impact), that will reduce casual personal transportation consumption without affecting farmers and freight shippers. Food and essentials will easily out-bid personal transportation.

                Rationing might be good to reduce consumption by the affluent, but it isn’t really necessary: prices will take care of it well enough.

             2. Old farmer mac,

                “I am a MASTER BULLSHITTER”

                Agreed.

                You are also a MASTER BAITER.

                Please stop trying to bait me by referring to me as ‘Futilista’. Thanks.

                1. But you are a FUTILISTA -you actually have told us so on at least one occasion and you seem to be proud of being the FOUNDER of a new philosophy based on well .. I am not to sure what exactly and would prefer not to know any more than you have told us already.

                   I don’t have to stir thru manure with a fine toothed comb to recognize what it is. An old farmer can recognize manure by sight or smell in an instant.

                   You have repeatedly assured us all that there is NO HOPE for us or anything more advanced than a jelly fish.

                   If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and swims like a duck and looks like a duck it most likely IS a duck you know.

                   Or maybe you don’t, actually …… IT has not occurred to me until NOW that you could POSSIBLY be so dense you don’t see the JUSTICE in my calling you what you have proclaimed yourself to be.

                   And anyway futilista is not nearly as big an insult as fascist.

                   I am just another naked male ape controlled by my midbrain rather than my neo cortex and thus constitutionally unable to allow you to get away with calling me names and insinuating that I am a Nazi and that sort of thing.

                   Not good for the old ego you see.

                   When you quit making personal remarks about me then I will quit making them about you.

                   I have never accused you of anything except stupidity as best I can remember right at the moment or questioned your sincerity or your honesty.

                   But you have made it VERY plain that your philosophy in part consists of making fun of people you disagree with.

                   If you bring a weapon to a fight your opponent is entitled to take it away from you and use it against you.

                   Whenever you insult me I will come back with a response that will make you look silly.

                   If I were at a party with civilized people I would ignore you so as not to create an unpleasant fuss. Here on the net everybody is entirely free to ignore the both of us. Our handles do after all appear at the top of our comments.

                   Which reminds me- you accused me a couple of days ago of flying under false colors because I use an internet handle to protect my privacy and the feelings of some old friends and family.

                   It DOES seem just a TAD hypocritical of you to criticize ME for using a handle when you do the same yourself.

                   I will make a note of the time this comment is posted and if you don’t mention me HEREAFTER I will not mention you again.

                   But I WILL have the last word until one or the other or both of us are banned.

                2. You guys would make a great remake of the “Odd Couple”. Can too men of apposing views live together. 🙂

                   It would be best if you both give it a rest, or take it somewhere else. No point it making Ron’s blog a version of the Jerry Springer show. Nobody ever wins these blog feuds anyway.

                3. Hi TechGuy.

                   This is not a blog feud.

                   This is now about community.

                   I addressed Old farmer mac below as dude instead of Old farmer mac because I really didn’t think anyone would post in between. If Old farmer mac chooses to embarrass himself, it is his own business.

                   Rather than trying to cover all this up and sweep it away, it might be better to learn something. About community and trust.

                4. “This is not a blog feud.”

                   I am afraid it is. Give it a rest.

                5. But Old farmer mac is obviously attempting to deceive everyone here. I guess you must approve.

                   Old farmer mac needs to give it a rest. Please don’t blame me for his actions.

                6. Dude, I just asked you to stop calling me ‘Futilista’. Your diatribe above is hardly warranted. And putting FUTILISTA in all caps is just your way of taunting me. You are very immature for an old farmer, mac.

                   “I will make a note of the time this comment is posted and if you don’t mention me HEREAFTER I will not mention you again.”

                   No. I don’t agree.

                   And that is because you said this:

                   “Here on the net everybody is entirely free to ignore the both of us. Our handles do after all appear at the top of our comments.”

                   So, you are suggesting that people not pay close attention to our disagreement? Interesting. I wonder why?

                   You then go on to fabricate a revisionist history of our disagreement with this ridiculous lie:

                   “Which reminds me- you accused me a couple of days ago of flying under false colors because I use an internet handle to protect my privacy and the feelings of some old friends and family.”

                   So, Old farmer mac, please find a post in which I actually accused you of anything like what you suggest here. If you cannot produce such post, then you are a liar!

                   I would suggest that everyone here do the opposite of what you suggest, and instead pay very close attention to this. Trust is important in a community.

                   Please explain to everyone here in this community why you just tried to deceive them. Think before you type.

                7. FUTILISTA your memory is a good match for your intellect.

                   You asked for it. Here it is.

                   I cut off the top of my comment in the interest of brevity haha. xxxx marks start of quote.

                   xxxx
                   ”…….But lots of people have plenty of excellent reasons to post under a pseudonym.

                   I am for instance reluctant to advertise the fact that I am a Darwinist locally. There is no danger of my getting lynched but otoh it would distress a lot of nice old folks who have been good to me without accomplishing a thing.

                   They have enough problems without worrying about a family member or old friend burning in hell forever.

                   Other people have jobs to worry about and can only say what they think without revealing their identity.
                   REPLY
                   Futilitist says:
                   MARCH 1, 2015 AT 8:29 PM
                   Hi Old tattle tail mac.

                   “And Super G would revoke Caelan’s privilege as soon as it became obvious his password is floating around.”

                   Are you going to tell Super G? How would it look to the public if he did this?

                   “I am for instance reluctant to advertise the fact that I am a Darwinist locally.”

                   Figures. Deception is always better, right?

                   “Trust and honesty matter.”

                   They certainly do. But it is very ugly when you try to apply the rule in this case. It is unethical. And it is just another attempt at DENIAL.

                   Are you paid by the word?

                   Back off, old man. For someone who wants to be left alone by me, you sure fuck with me a lot.

                   xxxx

                   end of quote.

                   You say trust and honesty matter and in the same breath you propose to Caelan that he betray the trust placed in him by the people who worked their tails off creating and running TOD.

                   And no I wouldn’t ” tattle” on you. No need at all.

                   Somebody is keeping an eye on traffic at the TOD server and would disable Caelan’s password as soon as the hits start coming in from lots of different places.

                   If necessary I will post the entire exchange between us form day one someplace so any body who gives a damn can follow it thru from the beginning.

                   I consider futilista as about on the same level as you constantly calling me a denialist which is not at all true.

                   I have consistently posted my opinion that collapse is a virtual certainty but that I hope some portion of civilization will survive.

                   You constantly accuse everybody who doesn’t agree with you of telling the big lie even as you constantly accuse anybody who disagrees with you of propaganda or worse.

                   You understand the big lie technique rather well you know, as evidenced by your constantly smearing anybody and everybody who disagrees with you as a denialist or propagandist etc.

                   With the exception of obvious trolls I never insult any body in this forum except on very rare occasions and then usually due to a misunderstanding. I apologize when I make that mistake.

                   In your case I will gladly make an exception.

                   Deny calling me a fascist and I will go back and hunt up that comment and repost it as well.

                   Now you are goad at weasel explanations and will no doubt claim your words mean something other
                   the obvious. Here they are again.

                   xxxx
                   “I am for instance reluctant to advertise the fact that I am a Darwinist locally.”

                   Figures. Deception is always better, right?
                   xxxx

                8. “I am for instance reluctant to advertise the fact that I am a Darwinist locally.”
                   ~Old farmer mac

                   “Figures. Deception is always better, right?”
                   ~Futilitist

                   You are taking my statement *WAY* out of context in an attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill. My comment was obviously a sarcastic one about your general deceptiveness. Even within your own community. Just like here.

                   Here is what you said that is a lie:

                   “Which reminds me- you accused me a couple of days ago of flying under false colors because I use an internet handle to protect my privacy and the feelings of some old friends and family.”

                   I never accused you such a thing. I said it was deceptive to hide your Darwinian perspective from your neighbors, not your internet handle. Since I never actually said it was wrong to use an internet handle for personal protection, your statement above is still a lie, and an attempt to deceive this community.

                   The rest of your post is just more smear tactics against me unrelated to what I am accusing you of.

                   You are trying to rewrite history with more DECEPTION. Shame on you.

                   People can easily go back and check for themselves. You are convicting yourself.

                   One more time, I ask you to please stop baiting me with insults and lies. Thank you.

35. Old Farmer Mac,

    The other day, you said you spend time here and at a few other choice websites where civil discussion of worthwhile topics occur.

    Could you share the names and links to those other websites? I would probably enjoy going to any website you deem worth your time.

    Thanks!

36. Carried over from here.

    “It’s clear the economic system is driving us towards an unsustainable future and people of my daughter’s generation will find it increasingly hard to survive. History has shown that civilisations have risen, stuck to their core values and then collapsed because they didn’t change. That’s where we are today.” ~ Jon Queally

    “Capitalism is… just better than all other systems… I will continue to think in terms of the world that exists.” ~ Dennis Coyne

    1. Caelan I admire your idealism but Dennis’s pragmatism is more to the point.

       Life is sort of like a card game that is already in progress and the cards already dealt.

       We are compelled to play the cards in our hand. Nature doesn’t do redeals.

       But in the long term – well in the long term , the pen has proven that it can defeat the sword.

       Capitalism is in my estimation no worse than any of the other isms we have tried.

       NONE of them in my estimation will work any better than capitalism without the same necessary extra essential ingredient that is necessary to make capitalism work- a well educated and well informed public with it’s eye on the political ball.

       Take the case of rich but scientifically ignorant businessman who owns a coal business. He is very very likely to be a republican and a SOCALLED conservative. Not much hope of his ever understanding that his own coal may be killing him personally and may kill his own children and grand children, that in fact his coal WILL contribute to the deaths of his grandchildren.

       But a real conservative with a brain understands the score. I recognize the necessity of burning coal in the short term as well as the utter NECESSITY of giving it up in the longer term. My own health doesn’t matter given my age but that of all the younger folks here and to come do matter. The health of everything alive matters.

       Wealth can me measured many ways. I am infinitely wealthier in a thousand ways than the Bourbon kings of France even though I have very little , other than a very modest farm , in the way of assets.

       One way and the very best way to measure wealth in my estimation is to measure it by my own long term health happiness and SECURITY.

       A person who lives in a country that is well governed with just about everybody having ENOUGH material goods to live a dignified life is in hardly any danger of Madame Guillotine. He is in little danger of getting killed in a resource war if his country is self sufficient in resources and refrains from meddling in the affairs of other countries unless it is NECESSARY.His country is unlikely to be WARRED UPON if it is STRONG enough to deter aggression.

       I am a social conservative. I believe in strong environmental laws even though such laws are probably going to result in the uncompensated defacto taking of the best part of my farm. This same law will however protect the stream on my property and the quality of the water in it all the way to the ocean – no some extent at least.

       All the people between here and the ocean who drink from the river it runs into are going to provide me IN PART with new knees on the government dime eventually so I will be compensated in real if not legal terms.

       I believe in social justice because when the cops can get away from beating the hell out of Rodney King they can get away with beating the hell out of ANYBODY some other day. I could go on all day. I have reason to believe that some of my own family was probably held in slavery in the not so distant past. I know for a fact that there were once many signs in this country reading ” No Irish NEED APPLY”.

       If anybody can be discriminated against then one day the tables will turn and it will be my turn to be held as a slave.

       Capitalism can be regulated as easily as any other form of government so far as I can tell.

       We already have a mixed system with social security medicare public education and hopefully we will move toward a greater mix.

       MORE POWER to your pen!

       But TODAY we play the cards in our hands as best we can.

       1. Mac, I realize that some people with a questionable moral/ethical compass may feel it necessary to stick a finger into the air to see which way the cultural (economic, social, political, etc.) wind blows and use that as their compass and basis for their narrative, even if that cultural wind blows them, and everyone and everything else, straight off a cliff.

          “In Climate Matters: Ethics in a Warming World, John Broome… explains the methods and arguments that help us understand the ethical implications of global warming, and he demonstrates why this reasoning can offer useful insights into how we should act. Trained in economics at MIT, Broome is particularly interested in assessing the ethical judgments made by economists. ‘Economists recognized, say, 50 years ago that economics is based on ethical assumptions’, he says. ‘But a number of them seem to have forgotten that in recent decades. They think what they do is somehow in an ‘ethic-free zone.’ And that plainly isn’t so. And climate change makes that obvious.’ ” ~ David Rotman

          “Gardiner’s challenge is to make sense of a tragic mess at global scales, one with impending disaster. This is something like doing ethics during a hurricane, only this natural disaster has anthropocentric causes. There are three main upsetting currents in the storm (p. 7):

          1. Asymmetry of power, between the rich and the poor. The richer nations, which have contributed most to the storm, have the most power to do something in solution, but tend to act in ways that favor their own self-interests. The poorer nations, and the poorer within those nations, who have contributed least and have no power to act, have the most to suffer.

          2. Asymmetry of power, between the present and the future. Present generations can affect the prospects of future generations adversely, but not vice versa. There is no reciprocity, so no bargaining, no checks and balances. Gardiner calls this a ‘tyranny of the contemporary’. Here democracy is as much the problem as the solution…

          3. A lack of robust ethical theories capable of dealing with such a consummate storm:

          Even our best moral and political theories are poorly placed to deal with many of the issues characteristic of long-term global problems such as climate change. These include (but are not limited to) intergenerational equity, international justice, scientific uncertainty, persons whose existence and preferences are contingent on the choices we make, and the human relationship to animals and the rest of nature” (pp. 213-4)…

          All this is prone to facilitate moral corruption (Chapter 9). Even in everyday moral thinking, we readily rationalize. Gardiner uses a memorable example from Jane Austen’s Sense and Sensibility to illustrate how the well-intended can lose their resolve. Our thinking is easily manipulated. We talk ourselves out of it, or let others (with vested interests in the outcome) talk us out of it. We argue away inconvenient duties. If that is a feature of common life, the challenge of an ethical response to global climate change takes it to a pitch. ‘The arguments that succeed are likely to trade on deep forms of corruption, and perhaps involve some form of moral schizophrenia’ (p. 339). To some extent our behaviors causing climate change are misdirected because they are self-interested. But such behaviors may not be even intelligently self-interested, just shallow or stupid.’ ” ~ Holmes Rolston, III

          “Climate change is a moral and ethical issue – it’s not about bean counting” ~ Mike Childs

          1. Amen, Caelan, amen.

             “Even in everyday moral thinking, we readily rationalize.”

             It is time to accept this.

             “…the well-intended can lose their resolve.”

             We must fight not to.

             “We talk ourselves out of it, or let others (with vested interests in the outcome) talk us out of it.”

             We must recognize this and begin to face denial head on. Even in ourselves.

             “We argue away inconvenient duties.”

             At our own peril.

             “If that is a feature of common life, the challenge of an ethical response to global climate change takes it to a pitch.”

             We must begin to radicalize.

             “‘The arguments that succeed are likely to trade on deep forms of corruption, and perhaps involve some form of moral schizophrenia’”

             It is time to accuse the deniers of murdering us all.

             1. Speaking of moral schizophrenia, ironically, it would seem that some prospects can be especially rosy for some people where limited ethical considerations are involved.

                1. Caelan I actually do agree in principle with your ethics arguments and probably agree in detail but not sure about all you details. I have no in-depth knowledge of the works of the people you link to.

                   My point is more the one about an empty belly trumping principles every time. If we don’t survive in the short term the long term is an academic question.

                   I have hopes that the world will eventually be a better place , that the better angels of our nature will eventually prevail.

                   Paint me a short to medium term pessimist but a long term optimist in terms of the ethics of humanity.

37. BNSF weekly carload report

    Number of coal carloads: 46,960, an increase of 3000 compared to week 8 of 2014.

    Number of carloads of petroleum: 10,125, about 550 cars more compared to week 8 of 2014.

    BNSF is making sure there is enough coal at power plants, you know, meeting the demand, doing the heavy hauling to make sure the supply is there. Looks like the demand is increasing some.

    Why do they do that? Don’t they know that coal emits dangerous carbon emissions?

    The BNSF should support environmentalism and refuse to haul coal and oil.

    The BNSF should refuse to use diesel fuel unless it is made from peanut oil or canola oil or corn oil.

    People can do without all of that heat and electricity from coal and oil.

    Try it for a week in January. See what happens.

    1. Tried it for about 1.5 yrs so far. No heat, no electricity from coal, oil or nat gas. All of it from PV. Doing just fine.

       Both Jan’s were dam cold and mighty dark. So, at the moment anyhow, is March. Record low predicted for tonite. No problem, battery bank full, and so is utility tractor battery, quite a bit bigger.

       Leaf battery full too, but can’t connect it to home as power source. Of course they will modify appropriately in future models.

       I see the near day when all the people like me- small towns- will do as I do since it makes $ sense. Use EV’s, charge with PV, and to hell with primitive minded power company trying stupidly to choke off the possibility, A suicidal move on their part. Far better option- restructure business model to accept any power from any source, at price appropriate for immediate demand, and sell grid service, which of course is valuable.

       I am NOT, NOT saying anything about keeping up BAU, or replacing ff’s. I will leave all that airing to those who don’t see that the future, even the very near future, is so thick a cloud of uncertainties that it is silly to talk about anything but what’s within arm reach right now. Like PV and EV.

       Now, back to the shop, where the real fun is, if I can get there alive.

       1. Wimbi, sounds like you have tons of energy! Pun time!

          The first solar panel I installed was a passive energy solar set up with the black 4×8 panel mounted on the side of a house with a small four inch fan blowing hot air into a small room. It helped a lot on a cold winter day, it worked fairly well. Long before active solar, there was passive solar panels.

          Hard to compete with a natural gas furnace using natural gas piped into a home, all you need to do is adjust the thermostat to 76 degrees and there is nothing more to do.

          Solar is the solution far in front of wind power. Farmers are not going to buy wind turbines for electricity, they don’t want them. As far as I can see no farmers are standing wind turbines in their farmyards or on their land, they know that the problem is greater than the reward. Might be a hint there.

          I was renting 3 acres, a house with a propane furnace and a Buck stove. Pro-pain is not a good fuel to use to heat a house. A tank with 125 pounds of pressurized propane in your backyard is not sensible, imo.

          I’ve burned thousands of gallons of propane drying grains, you need regulators, you need to use your head to watch for fires. Burned it night and day when I was hauling and drying grain to 12 percent moisture using a moisture tester, all for the bottom line. You dry grain to keep it from spoiling in the bin, however, sometimes, it heats up and gets baked into bread before it is ground into flour. When it is dried to a low enough moisture, it stores better in the bin. Eleven thousand bushels in one bin, 16,000 bushels into another bin, the main bins held 48,000 bushels, two of those and two more bins that held 46,000 bushels. Filled the grain house to the top.

          I once dried about 40,000 bushels of oil sunflowers. They need to have a dryness of about nine percent, they’ll store better. You can wait for the price to increase and then sell at a better price when the storage problems are resolved from the beginning. The sunflowers sold at a premium price.

          It all amounts to making money the hard way, earning it.

          Propane is great for drying grains using a grain dryer and an automatic feed system, a poor fuel choice to heat homes, it then becomes pro-pain. Coal is a far better fuel for heat.

          You buy coal for the buck stove, burn it for 24 hours and the heat is better, you’re not burning pro-pain, coal is less expensive, less hassle, and you can burn wood if you want when the weather isn’t as frigid cold, then you’re burning the coal at 600 degrees.

          Box elder wood burned the hottest at 975 on the chimney thermometer.

          A long time ago now, different world today. Go Solar!

          Give me liberty or give me death said Patrick Henry.

          Give me liberty or give me beer said Sam Adams.

          1. Yep. Coal.

             When we first looked at this house in 1960, there was a red hot coal stove right in the middle of it. No insulation anywhere, 7 kids, all timber cut, overgrazed,-even steep hillsides; no clear title. Been on market for a decade, no bidders. $ 6K for 450 acres of wasteland.

             6K was my year’s salary, rightly perceived as gobs of money by my neighbors.

             Coal. Remember that great scene in Titanic- sweaty stokers madly throwing coal into the ravenous boilers to drive that ship ever faster toward you-know-what.

       2. Wimbi wrote:
          “Tried it for about 1.5 yrs so far. No heat, no electricity from coal, oil or nat gas. All of it from PV.”

          And “wood” I presume. I recall you mentioned you had a wood stove for heat.

          1. Wood is renewable energy. Quite a bit of heating and cooking around the world is still done by burning wood. It still works after all these thousands of years.

38. More evidence of humanity’s pecadillos that leave us in our predicament:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/k-cup-creator-john-sylvan-regrets-inventing-coffee-making-system-1.2982660

    It would almost be funny if it didn’t have the dire effects that it has.

    So it goes.

39. Wind Power Trivia

    Last night I received e-mail from a friend in Holland that I thought might be of some interest here. George is a retired Civil Eng. who did some work with wind energy and commented as follows. This guy showed me some turbines in Holland a couple of years ago and knew I was somewhat interested. (I did edit his English a wee bit).

    According to George: “….So getting a higher average is a matter of finding windier locations; that means going further away from habitation and infrastructure. The problem here is, the wind producers tend to be subsidized with prices guaranteed so they don’t have to care about integration issues, in other words, they build in the less windy locations that are more cheaply accessible. It helps to think in terms of average local wind speed relative to the capacity factor. A 6 m/s wind speed results in 20% capacity factor and 8.5 m/s wind speed results in roughly 40-45% capacity factor.” A huge difference. I don’t know if these numbers refer specifically to the Netherlands or Europe in general.

    For any non engineers, the net capacity factor of a power plant is the ratio of its actual output over a period of time to its potential output if it were possible for it to operate at full nameplate capacity continuously over the same time period.

    1. Now a days there are wind turbines for just about every niche. It isn’t a one size fits all…

       http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31300982

       Critics of wind turbines argue vehemently that they are ugly and inefficient – a blot on the landscape and an expensive folly to boot.

       Efficiency has always been a strange critique given that the fuel driving turbines – wind – is free. And while electricity generated from wind may currently be more expensive than that from some fossil fuels, costs are coming down fast.

       Eye sores? That is simply a matter of opinion.

       But a new wave of turbine technologies are looking to end the debate once and for all, by making wind power cheaper, more flexible and, in many cases, less intrusive on pristine countryside.

       1. Fred,

          I expect you’re right. I’m a total agnostic on the matter of wind power as opposed to religion where I come in as a dedicated atheist. There is little doubt that wind in all its permutations will evolve to fill numerous niches but I was interested in how much a (relatively) small average wind speed effected the net capacity factor. Perhaps this is common knowledge?

          1. Average wind velocity plays a HUGE factor in wind turbine economics. Energy from wind varies by the cube of the velocity. (think of the physics – per Newton – power = force x velocity. Per Bernoulli – air flow drag force varies with the square of velocity, therefore power is proportional to velocity squared x velocity = velocity cubed)

             So, the power difference between an average velocity of 10 mph and 8 mph = 10 cubed over 8 cubed = almost double the power, for just a 2 mph increase.

             Also, because of boundary layer drag effects of the ground, the higher the wind turbine, the stronger the breeze (up to a limit).

             That’s why the big wind farms are ALWAYS at the windiest ridges (Altamont Ridge), funneling canyons (Columbia Gorge), windy off-shore (North Sea), and the wide open western plains (TX), and towers have become higher and higher (now over 100 meters to hub height). Location, location, location.

             1. Ah yes, Albert Betz and his Law proving the most you can possibly get from wind turbines is 59% of the power in the wind, that unassailable bit of physics. I barely recall having to repeat Betz’ proof on an exam that was given 50 years ago but I refuse to be held accountable for half century ago schooling: But I do recall that V cubed bit. Now bedsides coffee, what did I have for breakfast……

             2. Hi Doug, Fred and HVAC Man have got their factual ducks in a row but neither one of them actually answered you question, ”Perhaps this is common knowledge?”

                I can assure you it is not common knowledge.

                I will be perfectly blunt and admit that I am envious of your having a wife smarter than I am and that you are apparently materially much better off than I am as well.

                Good on you as they say these days.

                But I will tease you a bit and compare you to the mythical pipe smoking corduroy sports coat with leather elbow patches professor at the small liberal arts college in Vermont who reputedly said ” I can’t understand how McGovern lost the election. Everbody I know voted for him.”

                I guess you have succeeded to the extent you seldom have any contact AT ALL with the Joe Six Packs of the world.

                If there is any ONE critical fact that is almost universally overlooked by well educated people it is the utterly astounding width and depth of the average person’s ignorance of the physical world.

                But what should we expect? You can graduate from an Ivy League university with just ONE so called survey course in just ONE science.

                These courses require no math no lab no scholarship no outside reading to any serious extent and exist as a mere fig leaf to hide the ignorance of people getting degrees in humanities and fields outside the ones requiring some actual knowledge of the hard sciences.

                Any junior high school student reading above his grade average could pass one of them by parroting back what the professor has to say.

                1. Hi Mac,

                   “I guess you have succeeded to the extent you seldom have any contact AT ALL with the Joe Six Packs of the world.”

                   Well that’s not really right. As a working geophysicist I lived and worked with many types and respected most. There’ve been “Joe Six Packs” I would have trusted my life with and I even had some accountant friends but I’ve never met a banker or lawyer who I’d trust to watch my back in a dark alley. My wife is a total academic, of course, who spent a lot of her life teaching engineers math. And it’s true that she can speak seven languages but can’t change a tire. But she’s also the last person to regard herself in any way “superior”. So I think you’re off base on this, at least in my case, and I will stand by my wife whether you’re right or wrong. And I KNOW she would watch my back in ANY situation. In fact, she’d jump in to help a Joe Six Pack down on his luck or a stranger being attacked by thugs (unfortunately). How much do you expect from people?

                2. Hey Doug,

                   I said I was just TEASING you a bit. It comes of envy on my part.

                   I apologize for doing so and for misinterpreting your question. I thought you were serious but now I see you were probably just exhibiting a little dry British style humor.

                   I am doubly sorry I mentioned your wife at all but I did so to emphasize the sort of people you hang around with. Professional people.You spend your evenings after work with an ALPHA professional.

                   I will go so far as to stick my foot in my mouth again and point out that you are PRIVILEGED man because there is a humorous saying that mathematicians talk WITH and TO God only. Everybody else is beneath them.

                   But in the sense I meant you probably do have little contact with the Joe Sixpacks of the world and the world mostly consists of Joe SixPacks.

                   I have a lot of contact with Joe Sixpack. I used to teach his kids. I worked BESIDE him instead of SUPERVISING him.

                   Engineers are about a mile up the pecking order ladder and just don’t mix SOCIALLY with trades people and laborers.

                   How often do you have a semiliterate laborer or welder over for dinner?

                   Now as far as respecting trades people and being able to trust them with your life – absolutely yes. I trusted the engineers and they trusted me.

                   But knowing a man’s character and knowing his intellect- the part of it outside his job — are two different things.

                   Put on some working class duds and spend a month in a working class bar and you will understand where I am coming from.

                3. Hi Mac,

                   So, Maybe I ought remind my wife when poring my coffee she’s serving no only her Lord and Master but God Himself? 🙂

                4. Doug you misunderstand me once again.

                   😉

                   In terms of the humorous description of the relative standing of all the professions mathematicians ARE gods. So your wife may be willing to TALK to SKY DADDY as an equal- but serve him – No , that is out of the question.

                   You are the lucky dude she chooses to TREAT with coffee.

                   But INSIST on coffee and you will likely not get anything other than an arched eyebrow lol.

                   Another take on hubris.

                   A race fan was at the track one day during practice watching AJ Foyt’s car hoping to get his autograph when he pulled in and expressed his hopes to one of the crewmen.

                   He was told that AJ wasn’t even at the track that day- to which the fan replied in great surprise that it was well known that AJ NEVER let anybody else drive his race car so who is driving it?

                   The track guy says AJ lets God drive his car once in a while.

          2. Not really. When I thought of getting into renewable energy as a vocation, I started reading about this stuff and decided that there were probably not enough good locations for wind on this island to make it worthwhile. I also bought a low cost anemometer that I could attach to a PC and log wind data and discovered that the brisk breezes that I was observing in the middle of the day did not translate to a high average wind speed, driving home the idea about location. Finally the energy reaped by a turbine is directly proportional to the swept area and since the swept area is proportional to the sqaure of the radius, a turbine that doubles in diameter will harvest four times as much energy and one that is four times larger will harvest sixteen times as much.

             My take away from this was that, small wind is a bit of a scam and that there is a good reason why there seems to be a quest to build turbines as large as physically possible.

             1. Spot on, Alan. How is it going with your journey to bring a rational, realistic, and renewable mind-set to Jamaica and it’s electric power infrastructure? I miss your periodic updates from the TOD days.

40. http://headlines.ransquawk.com/headlines/venezuelan-oil-minister-chavez-says-that-oil-output-from-the-country-is-nearing-3mln-bpd-05-03-2015

    Ron’s charts disagree. January output 2.3ish mbpd. Not even close.

    1. Venezuela has been overstating their production numbers since 2003. The best figure is the OPEC monthly report as reported by secondary sources.

41. California is not out of the woods drought wise on the basis of El Nino.

    http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-el-nino-rain-20150304-story.html

    It is important to read a couple more stories linked inside this one for balance.

42. Potential tax break for Bakken oil producers

    Clock ticks toward North Dakota producers reaping up to $5.3 billion oil tax break

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/03/us-usa-north-dakota-tax-idUSKBN0LZ29U20150303

    WILLISTON, N.D. (Reuters) – The clock is still ticking on a potential $5.3 billion, two-year tax break for North Dakota’s oil industry after a state-calculated average of February’s crude price fell below $52.59 per barrel last month.
    The state waives its 6.5 percent oil extraction tax if the monthly price of benchmark West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude at the Cushing, Oklahoma, transport hub falls below an inflation-adjusted limit, set at $52.59 per barrel for 2015, for five consecutive months.
    For February, the average calculated price was $50.86 per barrel, according to North Dakota Tax Commissioner Ryan Rauschenberger. The average was an increase from the January average of $47.98 per barrel.
    The tax break kicks in if the average monthly price is below that $52.59 level for each of the next three months. If it is off even one month, the clock resets. The tax returns if the average price exceeds that level for a subsequent five consecutive months.
    The countdown, which has officially entered its second month out of a possible five, holds the promise of crucial financial incentive for oil producers and their contractors in the No. 2 oil-producing U.S. state as they grapple with a roughly 50 percent drop in crude prices since last summer.
    Indeed, many North Dakota energy companies have sharply scaled back drilling and hydraulic fracking. A tax break could encourage activity to pick back up in June, even if oil prices do not rebound. North Dakota legislators designed the tax waiver in 1987 specifically with that very goal in mind.
    Rauschenberger estimates North Dakota will take in $2.9 billion in oil taxes in the next two years without the oil extraction tax. With the tax, the projection is $8.2 billion.

    1. AlexS. This is a big deal for both producers and the state and it appears it could end up very close.

       1. shallow sand, I agree with you, it can help somewhat in a situation when prices are balancing around breakeven levels for Bakken producers.

       2. I would bet that it triggers. The inventory builds are going to max out storage by April and that will drive WTI through the floor.

          You can’t eat the stuff.

43. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/05/us-oil-train-derailment-bnsf-railway-idUSKBN0M12LK20150305

    No injuries reported but it is burning.

    1. Well, it has been cold in Illinois, so there is no harm in heating outside areas that are experiencing too much cold.

       The Oil Gods are doing God’s Work, just like Lloyd Blankfein at Goldman Sachs.

       Free heat and train derailments are blessings in disguise.

    2. http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2015/03/choo-choo-boom-boom
       Wow Impressive Images! Nothing like a Train wreck to distract from the POD Train wreck.
       Rail shrinkage due to Climate change?

44. ND Bakken Tax Trigger: Per Barrel Impact

    The Bakken Magazine, March 03, 2015
    http://thebakken.com/articles/1029/nd-bakken-tax-trigger-per-barrel-impact

    North Dakota calculates oil taxes using a formula based on the benchmark WTI market price to determine the trigger for the oil extraction tax. The trigger can impact new wells, existing wells and producers.

    North Dakota calculates oil taxes using a formula based on the benchmark WTI market price to determine the trigger for the oil extraction tax. In 2014, the trigger was set at $52.06 and increased to $52.59 for 2015. If the price for WTI minus $2.50 is below the trigger for one month, then all new wells completed in that month qualify for a reduced tax of 2 percent. If WTI minus $2.50 is below the trigger for five consecutive months, then all wells have the 6.5 percent extraction tax reduced to zero percent for 18 months.
    Based on the current and futures market pricing for WTI, the tax trigger should be enacted in May 2015.
    • Production Triggers―North Dakota has two sets of triggers for current and existing wells linked to the WTI (West Texas Intermediate) benchmark price minus $2.50. For 2015, that trigger has been set at $52.59.
    • New Wells―The trigger has already been in effect for one month, so all new wells will be taxed at 2 percent of production value compared to the standard 6.5 percent. This incentive lasts for the first 18 months, or 75,000 barrels, or $4.5 million of gross value or until the WTI benchmark exceeds $72.50 for a single month.
    • Existing Wells―If the WTI benchmark minus $2.50 per barrel is below the trigger for five consecutive months, new and existing wells will receive a tax holiday for the 6.5 percent production tax for the following 18 months.
    • Impact for Producers―If the five-month trigger is hit, producers will receive a tax benefit ranging from $2.60 to $3.00 per barrel. At current WTI prices, many Bakken producers are just covering cash costs and may not be able to reinvest in drilling operations without higher crude prices.

    Cash Impact
    The current tax on oil production for the state of North Dakota includes a gross production tax of 5.0 percent of the gross value and an oil extraction tax of 6.5 percent. When Bakken producers were able to generate $90 per barrel. last year, the taxes ranged from $8 to $10 per bbl. With lower crude oil prices, taxes per barrel produced in North Dakota are currently less than $4.00 per bbl. The 6.5 percent tax holiday will reduce the effective taxes producers pay per barrel by $2.50 to $3.00.
    The impact for shale producers is significant due to the higher operating costs for horizontal wells with hydraulic fracturing. The cash costs, which are costs associated with the operation of the wells and marketing of the oil, but not including the initial investment and depletion is near the breakeven point. At the current level of crude pricing, shale producers are just covering daily cash costs to produce and market the barrels of oil. The tax holiday will support producers and improve cash flow during lower oil pricing periods.
    The incentive is not enough to encourage new oil production. With average investment costs ranging from $20 to $25 per barrel, WTI would need to rise above $70 per barrel before drilling and completing new wells becomes economical. As seen in the chart, the tax holiday will reduce some of the cash costs for producing a barrel, but compared to the costs of drilling and operating a well in the Bakken region, investment should be modest for foreseeable future until prices rise significantly.

    

45. Another sign of peak oil? Business Insider’s Shane Ferro explains the current state of crude oil inventories and storage capacity in the US along with what it means.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/us-is-running-out-of-crude-oil-storage-2015-3

    I don’t know the flow dynamics of the oil industry, but the commercial storage capacity seems to be in days (not months) compared to the production and demand needed in the US.
    The Strategic Petroleum Reserve contains an additional 727 million barrel of crude oil storage. 563 million barrels of SPR storage capacity are in salt caverns located in Texas and Louisiana. In addition about 1 million barrels of gasoline and 1 million barrels of low sulfur diesel for heating are stored in the northeast.

    

    1. link to the original EIA report:
       http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20212

46. Another good article by John Camp, explaining why U.S. natural gas production continued to increase despite a sharp drop in gas rig count

    Lessons for U.S. oil production from the gas industry: Kemp
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/05/usa-crude-drilling-kemp-idUSL5N0W658220150305

    The United States produced a record 25.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in 2014 according to preliminary estimates published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) on Feb 27.
    Gas production has risen 27 percent since 2008 even though the number of rigs employed drilling for gas has declined by more than 80 percent over the same period
    The gas industry’s experience holds two lessons for oil production.
    First, gas production would have fallen since 2008 in response to lower prices and drilling had it not been for the boom in crude production and high prices for natural gas liquids.
    Second, it is the combined value of all the products from a well (dry gas, natural gas liquids and crude) that determine the profitability of a well.
    Continued growth in gas production has been, in large part, a by-product of the oil boom. Oil producers will not be so fortunate. They cannot rely on natural gas sales to improve the financial performance of their wells.
    Efficiency improvements and greater drilling selectivity will ensure the drop in oil production is proportionately smaller than the drop in rigs.
    But based on the gas industry’s experience there is every reason to believe oil output will level off, and maybe fall, unless oil prices and drilling pick up.
    Rig counts published by oilfield services company Baker Hughes and others make a simple binary distinction between rigs drilling for oil or gas.
    Drillers and petroleum producers must classify their wells as oil or gas-producing depending on the primary output and inform state authorities so they are treated appropriately for tax and regulatory purposes.
    In reality, however, most wells produce a range of hydrocarbons from dry gas (methane) to natural gas liquids (ethane, propane, butane and natural gasoline) and crude oil (molecules heavier than pentane).
    Since 2009, most drilling has targeted rock formations and plays that yield more natural gas liquids (NGLs) and crude rather than dry gas because they have been more valuable.
    An increasing share of gas production has therefore come from wells which are either listed as crude wells or listed as gas wells but produce a substantial volume of natural gas liquids and crude as well which improves their profitability.
    Simple correlations between prices, drilling and production are therefore apt to mislead.
    Correlations between rigs and total gas output miss the growing amount of associated gas produced from crude oil wells.
    Correlations between prices and the number of wells miss the important role played by natural gas liquids and trace crude recoveries in making these wells profitable.
    CASINGHEAD GAS
    Total U.S. gas production increased by roughly 4.2 trillion cubic feet between 2008 and 2013. Of this increase, 3.5 trillion, or 83 percent, came from just three states: Pennsylvania [i.e. Marcellus -AlexS], Texas and North Dakota.

    In Texas and North Dakota, increased gas production has been a by-product of the growing number of crude oil wells.
    In Texas, the amount of associated or casinghead gas produced from oil wells has tripled from 674 billion cubic feet in 2008 to almost 2 trillion cubic feet in 2014.
    Casinghead production has grown from less than 9 percent of the state’s gas output to almost 25 percent between 2008 and 2014, according to the Railroad Commission of Texas.
    Casinghead production has grown even as gas-well gas has fallen from 7 trillion cubic feet to 6.2 trillion

    North Dakota’s output of casinghead gas has also surged with the Bakken oil boom and the state’s efforts to curb flaring of associated gas produced from crude wells.
    In contrast to Texas and North Dakota, most of Pennsylvania’s increased gas production, which amounted to more than 3 trillion cubic feet between 2008 and 2013, has come from wells classified as gas producers.
    Pennsylvania’s shale gas wells drilled into the Marcellus formation have proved exceptionally productive. But those wells have also yielded a high and increasing proportion of natural gas liquids, helping them remain profitable despite depressed gas prices.
    The focus of drilling has gradually shifted from central Pennsylvania, where wells produce mostly dry gas, to more westerly counties, where the gas is wet and mixed with valuable NGLs and crude.

    

    1. It maybe interesting to note, as per the EIA Monthly Shale gas production, Marcellus, as of January 2015, has increased to 14.4bcf/d, or the equivalent of 5.2 tcfpd. A 60% increase in twelve months. I do not believe casing head gas is also going at this rate, in percentage terms or actual volumes.
       Also Utica, has increased from 500mmcfpd, to 1.8bcfpd, or the equivalent of 650bcfpd.

       Casing head gas is increasing gas supply, and it is very inelastic. It will be produced what ever the price, but I still see the Marcellus/Utica as the growth engine in gas supply, and it will increase as pipelines come on line. How high and how long the production goes is the question that should be discussed.

       1. Of course, as you know, the higher the production level, the greater the annual volumetric loss of production from existing wells, which of course is why Peaks Happen, i.e., it’s when, not if, that the contributions from new wells can no longer offset the declines from existing wells. Assuming about a 24%/year decline rate from existing wells, the operators in the Marcellus have to put on line about 3.5 BCF/day per year of new production, just to offset the declines from existing wells.

    2. Consumption (and US population) also increasing. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9140us2A.htm

47. Russian oil production giant: Oil output to drop 8 percent

    http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2015/03/russian-oil-production-giant-oil-output-to-drop-8-percent.html

    Lukoil said oil output in Russia could drop 8 percent by the end of 2016, Reuters reported. One of the biggest oil producers in Russia said its revenues were hit by the plunge in oil prices, The Wall Street Journal reported. The decrease in oil prices combined with the rise in inflation and weak ruble worsened by economic sanctions lowered the company’s net profit by 40 percent in 2014.

48. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/05/indigenous-peruvians-amazon-pollution-settlement-us-oil-occidental

    1. Mac, sometimes we see pretty unsanitary oil operations. I have inspected properties with poor environmental performance, so bad we had to turn down a proposed purchase (we were supposed to be the buyers). I have also seen places where the natives were abused, usually by migrants who followed roads opened by oil companies. The migrants are usually armed with shotguns and start murdering natives. Whenever I was involved I was able to talk my company into staying out of such places. Some of the worst were in the former Soviet Union, for example Uzen field in Kazahkstan. Nowadays PDVSA has terrible performance, but a lot of what goes on goes unreported.

    2. Here’s a photograph of the Jusepin River oil spill. It caused a shutdown of the city of Maturin municipal water supply.

       

49. Why the Best Path to a Low-Carbon Future is Not Wind or Solar Power

    1. Brookings is an outfit that generally tells it like it is but in this case the author of this particular piece is getting away with telling less than the whole truth by a mile.

       First off gas is not really in the last analysis a LOW CARBON fuel. It is LOWER carbon than coal and oil and that is all that can be truthfully said about it. We don’t really know for sure yet how bad gas is as a greenhouse factor because we DO NOT KNOW how much gas is inadvertently released and leaked in the pumping, delivery , and burning of it. There seems to be some serious evidence accumulating that a LOT of gas leaks directly into the atmosphere as the direct result of leaks at wells and pipelines etc.

       Second the author mentions not at all that gas prices are very likely to go up and up and up over the next few decades as depletion takes a bigger and bigger and bigger bite out of supplies.

       This ultimately comes back to one of my favorite rants and I bitch about it often. HARDLY ANY ARGUMENT dealing with energy and environment makes sense UNLESS a relevant time frame is specified by the author. Otherwise everybody will just be peeing on each other in the figurative sense in making and refuting points.

       He mentions that falling panel prices will not help much in lowering the cost of solar farms which is true. But he does NOT mention that economies of scale and streamlining of the permitting process will substantially lower solar costs. Germans install small scale solar for HALF what our vaunted American tradesmen do it for at this time. We will catch up and the rest of the world will mostly catch up as well.

       I could go on but I think I have made my point.

       So far as I have noticed NOBODY at all is emphasizing one of the most important benefits of wind and solar power – the indisputable fact that when you substitute away from a commodity it puts downward pressure on the price and production of it.

       Every kilowatt hour produced by wind and solar farms saves ALMOST a kilowatt hour’s worth of coal and or gas.

       That means lower sales of coal and gas- good for everybody EXCEPT people directly involved in coal and gas. Cheaper coal for steel manufacturers , cheaper gas for homeowners and fertilizer manufacturer’s which results in the end in cheaper food for everybody.

       1. Old Farmer,
          Good point about the downward price pressure, although not sure about coal if it is exported.
          As far as I have read, natural gas has about the same carbon footprint as coal due to all the leakage and burning. Remember when natural gas is burned, one molecule of methane, CH4, produces one CO2, and 2 water molecules. So two greenhouse gases are produced by the combustion and forced into the atmosphere. Not only that two molecules of O2 are lost to the atmosphere.
          The operation of solar and wind power does not make any CO2 or H2O, and it does not remove any diatomic oxygen from the atmosphere. It also does not leak methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
          I do not understand how fossil fuel burning can even be equated to the production of energy using solar or wind power. The only way it can is to ignore the huge downsides of fossil fuel mining, transport, storage and burning. If I ignore the cost of fuel, insurance, maintenance and destruction to the environment by having and using a car, it’s a real bargain, much better than a bicycle by far.
          Old Farmer Mac makes a great point about the high cost of installation and permitting in the US. Pathetic case of greed and lack of sense. It also reduces demand for solar.

          1. Coal is 33 million joules per kilogram (2.2 lbs).

             3.6 million joules in a kilowatt hour.

             “Every kilowatt hour produced by wind and solar farms saves ALMOST a kilowatt hour’s worth of coal and or gas.”

             About 7 square meters of solar panel illuminated for 1 hour of perfect sunshine is 0.1 kg of coal . . . that’s 0.22 pounds. 3.5 ounces.

             It requires less than 3.5 ounces of coal at night.

             1. Don’t forget the 65% thermal losses in generation.

       2. Old Farmer Mac: Pay Attention! lol

          Well, hells bells, I did think that the author advocated the replacement of coal in the generation of electricity. Save coal for better uses.

          The title of the article should be ‘How to Develop Renewables to Wean the World from Coal’. The alternative energy crazed wigged-out left wing anti-capitalist sharp dullards would lap it up.

          If you need 4.3 wind farms for every coal-fired power plant, the coal-fired power plant will trump the wind farm any day of the week. The coal company and the power company are in business and coal works, that prevails at the present time. The BAU of renewables may surpass BAU for the fossil fuel industry 25 years down the road, but for right now here in the real world, fossil fuels rule, business of the discussion is over. It just looks like the wind farms are reducing the demand for coal, when the real results probably show that coal consumption increases. Another negative feedback loop, when will they ever learn?

          It is necessary to factor in the carbon emissions from the manufacture and building of wind turbines and farms. The total tonnage of CO2 from beginning of the manufacturing processs to the end of completion of construction to electricity production needs to be added and then valued. Wind turbines are in deep with carbon emissions from the getgo, they need a fossil fuel energy base to become what they are.

          The wind farm begins with a deficit CO2 benefit, until the power generated reduces the deficit to zero, it will remain emitting carbon pollutants while it generates electricity free of carbon emissions. Maintenance and operations will not be CO2 free. Wind turbines will never be free of fossil fuels used. Fossil fuels will be required to operate and maintain wind and solar farms, they are fossil fuel dependent at all stages of their development, including the finished state.

          In other words, they are liable for a fifty dollar per ton tax on CO2 emitted during the process of manufacturing and building. The wind industry is not off of the hook, there is no free lunch.

          Coal-fired power plants have the capacity to do the job and the cost is lower, coal-fired power plants are far more reliable, generate 24 hours per day, and at the end of the day, are more profitable than wind. In other words, wind and solar lag far behind in capacity.

          It more or less conclusively finds that wind and solar can’t do it alone and probably increase the use of coal to generate electricity. Wind and solar do not mean a low carbon future if they cause more coal to be used to generate electricity, they are causing more carbon emissions, not less, while claiming they are carbon free, begins to all look iffy, possibly fraudulent.

          However, I do recognize the strategic importance of wind and solar and they will eventually will be relied upon more in the future. It is inevitable.

          For now, wind and solar will have to wait to do the job.

          Hence the title.

          Today’s choice of music:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzS-Jis7kfA

    2. Having had to compose a rebuttal for a questionable bit of research that, recently made the pages of one of my local newspapers for the second time in just about two weeks, this piece seems vaguely similar. In the case of the piece which resurfaced in my local newspaper, the researcher claims to have used a document from the Worldwatch Institute to get his data for the cost of renewables along with data from local government agencies for conventional sources, in order to state under the heading “Discussion” that, “Our study also reveals a rather surprising finding that investing in solar energy is not optimal for the country. Contrary to increasing popularity of solar panels in Jamaica, given current investment climate and costs, solar energy is not recommended as an energy option for electricity generation for the national grid.” He then goes on to state in his conclusion, “Surprisingly, solar power is not competitive and not recommended for the national grid for a 20% RE
       penetration.”

       However when I took a look at the document he cites as the source of his date, Jamaica Sustainable Energy Roadmap: Pathways to an Affordable, Reliable, Low – Emission Electricity System the conclusion of Chapter 6 –Assessing the Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative Electricity Pathways, includes the following,

       “Coal power is about 2.5 times the generation cost of wind power and five times that of
       hydropower. Small-scale solar PV is about 25 U.S. cents per kWh cheaper than oil combustion and 5
       U.S. cents per kWh cheaper than oil combined-cycle generation. Large-scale solar PV is about half the
       price of electricity generated by coal.

       Given these powerful arguments in favor of a transition to renewables, a continued reliance on fossil
       fuels would equate to an economic disaster. The Government of Jamaica therefore should be encouraged
       to develop a more ambitious plan to rebuild the country’s electricity sector based on renewable energy. ”

       In my comment to the local newspaper article I concluded, “How on earth does Dr. Abdulkadri cite a document and use data from that document, to come to a radically different set of conclusions from those found in the document?”

       For this piece from Brookings, the complete paper is available at the following URL

       http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/05/19-low-carbon-future-wind-solar-power-frank/net-benefits-final.pdf

       For contrast I have looked at a paper that was brought up by an article in a weekly solar newsletter I subscribe to, under the headline Solar Energy Emerging as Cheapest Power Source in Many Parts of the World. The full paper can be downloaded from the following page:

       http://www.agora-energiewende.org/topics/optimisation-of-the-overall-system/detail-view/article/solar-energy-emerging-as-cheapest-power-source-in-many-parts-of-the-world/

       When I take into consideration all the reports of LCOE studies that have surfaced over the past year or so, coupled with the fact that the US (of all places) has just had a record year for the installation of mostly utility scale solar PV (mostly in the south-west) and projections from people like Tony Seba, I find this negative slant on PV a little hard to believe. 2015 Should be a very interesting year for PV in the US partly because of news like this:

       SolarCity creates fund to finance USD 750 million in residential PV projects with investment from Google

       At $5.00/Watt, that’s a 150MW pipeline for SolarCity alone, enough to install 15,000 10kW residential systems!

       Whatever the negative spin being put out there about PV, a growing number of people ain’t buying it.

       Alan from the islands

       1. Well said Alan.

          Personally I enjoy RW’s compositions immensely most of the time and he really is good at irony and satire.

          But every once in a while he actually says something in a clear enough fashion to make sense of what he is saying.Generally I can’t decide what he means with any degree of certainty. In this case he is in my opinion clearly mistaken if the time frame is medium to long.

          His arguments hold water if the time frame is limited to the present and the immediate future.

          There is no known way to manage a FAST transition to renewables and it IS going to be a very expensive transition under the best of circumstances due to renewables being an all up front investment with slow long term payback.

          But we either manage the transition or industrial civilization as we know it perishes.

          Fortunately we have in my opinion at least two or three decades be fore fossil fuels become so scarce there is no hope of working on the transition and there will be a hell of a lot of progress in the renewables industries within that time frame in terms of costs and capabilities.

          We have a shot at preserving life as we know it for some of us at least. Water sewer hospitals electricity stores full of food basic public health measures in effect etc etc.

          OLD MAN BUSINESS AS USUAL is a dead man walking.

          We will mostly be doing without cars especially cars comparable to todays models and without air travel but we will probably have buses and such.

          At least some people will survive and have these things if I am right. I do not claim to be infallible.

50. update on the FREAK

    Listen up everybody who uses the net for sensitive business.

    http://www.computerworld.com/article/2893370/time-for-all-windows-users-to-freak-out-over-encryption-bug.html

    I wondered a couple of days ago why Microsoft was supposedly immune. Windows is vulnerable too.

51. Naomi Klein’s excellent piece in the Guardian today:

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/dont-look-away-now-the-climate-crisis-needs-you

    1. In the entire damn text there isn’t a single mention of the most important facts of all…
       There’s just too many fucking people on the damn planet trying to grow their stupid fucking economies using evermore resources and waste sinks on a tiny damn finite planet. Too many damn fucking people still thinking it is someone else’s problem or that magic technology is going to let this insanity continue… Ain’t gonna work!

       “The Planet is fine, it’s the people that are fucked”
       George Carlin

52. anyone besides me having problems posting comments with links?

    anyone?

    Bueller?

    1. Yes! I’ll try it again, now (15:17 CST)

       Mergers and rumors of mergers:

       http://blogs.houstonpress.com/news/2015/03/could_exxonmobil_buy_bp.php

53. Today’s Baker Hughes oil & gas rigs data:
    U.S. oil rigs down 64 units (to 922), gas rigs down 12 units
    Permian: – 22, Eagle Ford: -8, Williston: -3 (to 108, including 105 in North Dakota)
    Decline rates re-accelerated

    

    1. AlexS: I believe BH came out with monthly worldwide rig numbers today also. Are you able to post those too?

       Appears to me 800 oil rigs by end of March very likely.
       500 by end of June also very likely.

       Oil may not rebound for awhile given dollar’s continued strength and possibility of US interest rate increase nearing. Likewise, nat. gas appears to be headed nowhere, with many producers obtaining $1.xx prices at the wellhead.

       Difficult for me to wait until May to see the bloodbath that will be the first quarter, 2015 for US shale. The talking heads will take notice assuming over one half of company reserve values disappear.

    2. Texas has stacked over 300 rigs? Wow. I wouldn’t have expected them and North Dakota to move together in % terms this tightly.

       Kind of impressed anything is still operating in the more expensive basins. Long-term contracts for exploration, maybe.

54. shallow sand,
    Here is the worldwide rig count:

    *The peak means post the decline in oil prices

    

55. Change in oil rig counts from last year’s peak levels by key LTO producing basins:

    

Comments are closed.