DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Fossil Fuel Folly
*****************************************************
#Post#: 8134--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than th
e Obvious Ones!
By: AGelbert Date: October 17, 2017, 2:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img
width=140]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200317134631.png[/img]
[center]Scott Pruitt
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/> says subsidies give renewables an unfair edge, and here’s why
he’s a monumental hypocrite[/center]
LAST UPDATED ON OCTOBER 10TH, 2017 AT 4:37 PM BY ALEXANDRU MICU
[center]
[img
width=640]
HTML https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Pruitt.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]Mom says I’m good at Photoshop, ok? ;D Image credits me
/ ZMEScience, free to use with attribution.[/center]
In a pioneering display of cognitive dissonance, EPA chief Scott
Pruitt said on Monday that he would to do away with subsidies
for renewable energy and let them “stand on their own and
compete against” other sources of energy, such as fossil — the
latter being heavily subsidized, and has been so for decades.
[img
width=50]
HTML http://www.smilies.4-user.de/include/Spiele/smilie_game_017.gif[/img]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
[img
width=800]
HTML https://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/assets/content/cache/made/content/images/articles/Pfund-subsidies_618_275.jpg[/img]
Another week, another Pruittism. [img
width=30]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif[/img]
This
Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator said
that he believes federal tax credits for wind and solar power
should be eliminated in the interest of fair play on the energy
market. [img
width=80]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
“I would do away with these incentives that we give to wind and
solar,” he told attendees at a Kentucky Farm Bureau event.
“I’d let them stand on their own and compete ;) against coal
and natural gas and other sources, and let utilities make
real-time market decisions on those types of things as opposed
to being propped up by tax incentives and other types of credits
that occur, both in the federal level and state level,” he
further explained.
Now, I like hypocrisy just as much as the next guy (spoiler
alert: I don’t [img width=25
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png[/img]<br
/>) but Mr. Pruitt definitely went to previously un-dredged lows
with that announcement. To see why, let’s take a look at what
subsidies are and how they play out across the energy sector.
Here’s the too long; didn’t read version, presented by David
Hochschild, a commissioner with the California Energy
Commission, at the Energy Productivity Summer Study in Sydney in
February 2016. Image via CleanTechnica.
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/david-subsidies.jpg[/img][/center]
Subsidy, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary
A grant or gift of money: such as:
a) a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to
the crown and raised by special taxation
b) money granted by one state to another
c) a grant by a government to a private person or company to
assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public.
We’re interested in the latter meaning of the word. Let’s take a
look at the subsidies Mr. Pruitt would do away with:
1.Wind power currently enjoys a tax credit of about 2.3 cents
per kWh produced, and the measure starts phasing out this year
and will expire completely in 2020.
2.Solar energy investments get tax credits equal to 30% of their
sum to encourage companies to invest in the sector. These
credits will expire completely by 2022.
These incentives enjoy wide support among environmentalists and
Democrats, while direct competitors of renewable in the energy
market obviously oppose them, as do some Republicans. They’ve
been touted again and again as the sole reason why renewable
energy has seen such rapid growth in recent years, and the
fossil fuel industry has been endlessly complaining they’re an
unfair advantage.
Now let’s take a look at the subsidies oil, gas, and coal
receive, as quantified by researchers at Oil Change
International (full report at the bottom of the article). The
sums in brackets are the estimated costs per year of these
subsidies. Find a comfy seat, ’cause this is going to take a
while.
The monetary black hole that is fossil fuel subsidies
Exploration and production related:
1.Intangible drilling oil & gas deduction ($2.3 billion):
Independent producers can fully deduct costs that aren’t
directly related to the final operation of wells (such as labor,
surveying, ground clearing, including development costs).
Integrated companies can deduct 70% up front and the rest of 30%
over five years.
2.Excess of percentage over cost depletion ($1.5 billion):
Independent fossil fuel producers can deduct a percentage of
their gross income from production, reflecting reservoir
depreciation.
Non-production related:
1.Master Limited Partnerships tax exemption ($1.6 billion): A
special corporate form that is exempt from corporate income
taxes and publicly-traded on stock markets, primarily available
to natural resource firms, the majority of which are fossil fuel
companies.
2.Last-in, first-out (LIFO) accounting ($1.7 billion): Allows
oil companies to assume for accounting purposes that they sell
the inventory most recently acquired or manufactured first. When
inventory is experiencing increasing prices, LIFO assigns the
most recent prices to cost of goods sold and oldest prices to
remaining inventory, hence resulting in the highest amount of
cost of goods sold and lowest taxable income for the company. It
gets even better! LIFO-like measures are prohibited under
international financial reporting standards.
Fire-sale on federal lands:
Author’s note: these methods hand over energy resources from
public lands and federally-controlled waters to the fossil fuel
industry at extremely low relative prices.
1.Lost royalties from onshore and offshore drilling ($1.2
billion): outdated royalty exemptions, rate setting, and
procedures for assessing oil and gas production on federal lands
shortchange taxpayers by more than a billion dollars each year.
If the federal government were to charge a 20% royalty rate for
onshore drilling, the lowest rate charged by the state of Texas,
taxpayers would benefit from an additional $3 billion in
revenues.
2.Low-cost leasing of coal-production in the Powder River Basin
($963 million): allows coal companies to lease federal land at
low costs in the Powder River Basin (PRB), a mostly
federally-owned coal-producing region in Wyoming and Montana
that accounts for 40 percent of U.S. coal production (and 85
percent of coal production from federal lands). By exempting
from ‘major coal producing region’ status, the federal
government did away with requirements to plan and monitor coal
production according to a systematic management process, making
for significantly lenient lease rates in the PRB.
From now on I’ll just give a few examples in each category, and
I’ll keep them short because most of you are probably dozing off
by now.
Coal Bailouts:
Author’s note: as coal companies become insolvent, taxpayer
dollars cover their obligations to communities and workers.
1.Inadequate industry fees recouped to cover the Abandoned Mine
Land Grant Fund ($400 million).
2.Inadequate industry support to cover worker health impacts
($330 million).
Pollution subsidies:
1.Deduction for oil spill penalty costs ($334 million).
2.Tar sands exemption from payments into the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund ($47 million).
Subsidies that lock in fossil fuel dependence:
1.Enhanced oil recovery credit ($235 million in 2017, could cost
$8.8 billion over the next decade according to The Office of
Management and Budget).
2.CO2 sequestration credit ($95 million).
Gets hard to follow, so here it is in chart form for 2016: [img
width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png[/img]<br
/>
[img
width=800]
HTML https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PermaTaxBreak.png[/img]
[img
width=800]
HTML https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/OCI_US_Fossil_Fuel_Subs_2015_16_categories.jpg[/img]
[img
width=800]
HTML https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/OCI_US_Fossil_Fuel_Subs_2015_16_categories.jpg[/img]
Add everything up and you get $14.7 billion in federal subsidies
and $5.8 billion in state-level incentives, for a total of $20.5
billion annually in corporate welfare. One-fifth of that goes to
coal, the rest to oil and gas. Another factor at play here is
continuity and length of these subsidizing schemes.
Another graph presented by Hochschild in Sydney, showing the
short-term nature of the subsidies for renewable energy.
[img
width=800]
HTML https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/david-susbidies-time.jpg[/img]
[quote]“There is a myth around subsidies, but there is no such
thing as an unsubsidised unit of energy,” Hochschild told
RenewEconomy after his presentation, and CleanTechnica later
picking up on the quote here. “The fossil fuel industry hates to
talk about that,” he added.[/quote]
He explained that oil depletion allowances have been in place
since 1926 and would continue, despite the fact that oil is “one
of the most profitable industries in the world.” Insurance costs
for nuclear plants, “without which there would be no nuclear
plants,” are also a subsidy, CleanTechnica goes on to write.
Drilling or fracking, which have been made exempt from
compliance with the safe drinking water act, also serve as a
subsidy by allowing natural gas companies to cut costs.
US wind and solar industries were stifled with repeated changes
to their federal support mechanisms. The tax credits have been
changed seven times in a decade, according to Hochschild.
“How can you plan a wind turbine factory or project in those
types of conditions?” he asked.
A sliver of a crumb
Everything I’ve listed above is only part of the direct
subsidies fossil fuel companies receive in the US, because the
OCI only looked at direct production subsidies. OCI notes that
the estimates of state-level subsidies are probably low, since
many states don’t report the costs of tax expenditures (i.e.,
tax breaks and credits to industry), so data is difficult to
come by.
Add to the above roughly $14.5 billion in consumption subsidies
(things like Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which
helps residents pay for heating bills,) $2.1 billion in
subsidies for overseas fossil fuel projects, and probably the
single greatest offender, indirect subsidies. This latter
category involves things like the money the US military spends
to protect oil shipping routes, or the unpaid costs of health
and climate impacts from burning fossil fuels, which are
naturally really hard to quantify precisely but navigate in the
region of hundreds of billions of dollars.
It’s not happening in the US alone. According to the
International Energy Agency, global subsidies for fossil fuels
outweigh those for renewable energy more than 10-fold —
CleanTechnica estimates it’s more than 13-fold if you don’t
count biofuels. Vox reported that the International Monetary
Fund estimates the world spends $500 billion in direct subsidies
for fossil energy, a figure that increases to about $5.3
trillion a year after indirect spending (including environmental
damages) are factored in.
But only Mr. Pruitt has the audacity to claim subsidies unfairly
favor renewables, and they should be scrapped. It’s both
hilarious and infuriating when the chief of the EPA says that,
considering that the US’ subsidy policy on renewables is “hey
we’ll help cover a bit of the cost of each unit of energy a wind
turbine produces, and any company that invests in building solar
energy will get just shy of 1/3 of that investment as a tax
reduction. For the next 3-5 years.” Then it turns around and
shells some $30 billion to fossil fuel companies every year.
Why? Well, as OCI concludes:
“In the 2015-2016 election cycle, oil, gas, and coal companies
spent $354 million in campaign contributions and lobbying and
received $29.4 billion in federal subsidies in total over those
same years — an 8,200% return on investment.”
Every penny of that is paid from your pocket. Every year, your
taxes pay for a company’s search for new deposits and the means
to exploit them, its tax breaks, covers accounting artifices
that are banned under international financing standards,
forfeiture of royalties, dirt-cheap leasing, and finally they
cover the costs when that company pollutes your air and water or
simply fracks up big time and spills something or goes
insolvent. Every year, some starting as far back as the 1900s.
All of it so that a fossil fuel company can keep making money,
despite the fact that renewables can take up the job for less
spending, fewer health impacts, less wealth concentration. And
with 100% less global warming cover-up shenanigans.
[img
width=70]
HTML http://www.funny-emoticons.com/files/funny-animals/blue-bird-emoticons/801-listen-up!.png[/img]<br
/>So tell me again about how energy companies need to “stand on
their own and compete” Pruitt, you brass-necked hypocrite.
OCI’s full report is available here. For a more comprehensive
list of the subsidy schemes energy companies enjoy, as well as
more details for the ones I’ve listed here, you can use the
Green Scissors database.
HTML https://www.zmescience.com/science/scott-pruitt-energy-subsidy/
[move][I][font=impact]The Fossil Fuelers DID THE Clean Energy
Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting
CRIME,[COLOR=BROWN] but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and
conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID [/color] DOING
THE TIME or PAYING THE FINE! Don't let them get away
with it! Pass it on!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/176.gif<br
/>[/font][/I][/move]
#Post#: 12901--------------------------------------------------
Robert Reich explains the policies that line the pockets of corp
orations while hurting ordinary Amer
By: AGelbert Date: July 17, 2019, 3:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: Check out how much Corporate Welfare
we-the-people are coerced to hand out to the 🦕🦖
Hydrocarbon Fuels 😈 "Industry" Crooks and Liars.
[center] [img
width=200]
HTML http://graysondemocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/end-oil.jpg[/img]<br
/>[/center]
[center]Robert Reich: How Corporate Welfare
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418193910.gifHurts<br
/>
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-040718162656-14241872.gif<br
/>YOU[/center]
32,086 views
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/8Qq8LQqT_bw[/center]
👍
Robert Reich 👍👍👍
Published on Jul 16, 2019
Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich explains the policies
that line the pockets of corporations while hurting ordinary
Americans.
[center]Watch More: The Truth of Privatization
►►[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/0wYHRWo2Ins[/center]
Category News & Politics
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-170718172005.png[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=400]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-170218174458.png[/img]<br
/>[/center]
#Post#: 13320--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than th
e Obvious Ones!
By: AGelbert Date: August 21, 2019, 11:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=200]
HTML http://graysondemocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/end-oil.jpg[/img][/center]
[font=times new roman]CleanTechnica[/font]
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!
Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.
HTML https://cleantechnica.com/shop/#!/
[center]US [img
width=80]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-020818201645-1486464.jpeg[/img]<br
/>Subsidizes Fossil Fuels To The Tune Of $4.6, $27.4, Or $649
Billion Annually, Depending On Source [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120716190938.png[/img][/center]
August 20th, 2019 by Michael Barnard
There are frequently complaints bandied about by the usual
suspects about the horrendous subsidies for renewable energy,
along with claims that renewables would die without them. It’s
worth looking at the state of energy subsidies in the US in that
context.
There are a set of increasing numbers that are worth
considering. Congressional research puts the minimum number at
$4.6 billion annually. An NRDC G7 annual analysis puts the
number at $27.4 billion annually. An IMF full accounting
including negative externalities related to health and global
warming puts it at $649 billion annually.
Per the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the US subsidizes
fossil fuels to the tune of $649 billion annually, above the
non-war defense budget (wars get special funding).
The IMF found that direct and indirect subsidies for coal, oil
and gas in the U.S. reached $649 billion in 2015. Pentagon
spending that same year was $599 billion.
The study defines “subsidy” very broadly, as many economists do.
It accounts for the “differences between actual consumer fuel
prices and how much consumers would pay if prices fully
reflected supply costs plus the taxes needed to reflect
environmental costs” and other damage, including premature
deaths from air pollution.
The IMF, by the way, is an international organization of 189
countries including the US, founded in 1945 with the primary
purpose of ensuring the stability of the international monetary
system — the system of exchange rates and international payments
that enables countries (and their citizens) to transact with
each other. It’s a very serious global organization.
Direct fiscal support for fossil fuel extraction and production
in the US comes in a few forms. There are numerous permanent tax
code funding credits available for fossil fuel exploration and
extraction, adding up to $4.6 billion annually, per a 2019
Congressional Research report on energy subsidies. That report
is the smallest estimate of fossil fuel subsidies, yet
historically they indicate that total fossil fuel subsidies have
exceeded renewables subsidies since 1978 and in 1982 exceeded
the highest annual subsidies for renewables in any year.
[center]Graph of historical and projected energy subsidies
1978-2022[/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://cleantechnica.com/files/2019/08/Screen-Shot-2019-08-20-at-9.17.56-AM.png[/img]<br
/>[/center]
[center]Graph courtesy of US Congressional Research
Service[/center]
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Overseas
Development Institute (ODI), Oil Change International (OCI), and
the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
publish an annual scorecard of fossil fuel subsidies in the G7
countries. They put the US total number higher, at $27.4
billion. All G7 countries pledged to eliminate fossil fuel
subsidies well over a decade ago, but the worst performer in
terms of removing them has been the USA.
The United States ranked last on progress in removing fossil
fuel subsidies, due to the massive amount of subsidies for
fossil fuel exploration and production, as well as for
backtracking on previous pledges to end support to fossil fuels.
And using the G7 measures of fiscal incentives for energy, it’s
clear that the US has provided vastly more support to fossil
fuels than it has to renewables.
Of course, none of these studies tries to calculate the
geopolitical costs of US military action related to defending
oil supplies. That’s a thornier problem, but it’s clear that the
US military has spent a lot of its global budget specifically in
regions which provided the US with a lot of fossil fuels for
politically strategic reasons which are now going away.
The United States, unlike many countries, doesn’t have a direct
consumption subsidy for fossil fuels, which is what some
defenders of the industry use as the basis of their false claim
that there are no subsidies. The International Energy Agency
tracks direct consumption subsidies in material it publishes
annually, and the United States doesn’t show up in that list.
Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China lead the pack in terms of those
subsidies, but China is tracking well in terms of reducing
subsidies across the energy space, including on fossil fuels.
It’s worth comparing and contrasting this to the subsidies that
wind and solar energy get in the USA. Unlike fossil fuels, these
subsidies aren’t in the permanent tax code but in a temporary
code category.
The Production Tax Credit for wind energy has been an on and off
credit per kWh for electricity generated from wind farms. In
late 2015, it was extended through 2020 starting at $21 per MWh
for the first ten years of production with a 20% reduction for
new wind farms each year, ending in 2019. That means that a wind
farm built in 2019 would get about $4 per MWh for the next
decade, but one built in 2020 will get no tax credits.
The Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar had a different
trajectory. It was extended through 2022 and offered 30% tax
credits for home, commercial, and utility projects. In 2022,
that will be reduced to 10% for commercial solar and utility
projects only, with no tax credits for home projects. That’s
obviously reduced substantially in a calculated stepdown as
well.
That’s right. In 2022, new wind energy will get zero financial
assistance of any kind and new solar will get very little, while
fossil fuels will continue to get $4.6 billion annually in the
best possible accounting, $27.4 billion in a reasonable
accounting and $649 billion in a full accounting including
negative externalities.
[center]Chart showing impacts of PTC and ITC scenarios on
renewable energy[/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://cleantechnica.com/files/2019/08/fig_if3-1_2018.png[/img][/center]
[center]Chart courtesy US EIA[/center]
As the EIA chart on the impacts of different scenarios for the
PTC and ITC shows, there are substantial upsides for the US grid
to extending the PTC and ITC, just as there are substantial
upsides for elimination of fossil fuels subsidies.
It’s worth noting that the deal that extended the PTC and ITC
came about because Congressional deal makers gave (mostly)
Republicans a very specific, fossil fuel win. The deal removed
the US restriction on exporting crude oil, a policy which was
put in place around the OPEC Oil Crisis for energy security
reasons. So the ITC and PTC temporary extensions came with the
USA being able to ship more fossil fuels of different types to
other countries, permanently.
And it’s also worth noting that nuclear generation also has
permanent tax code breaks worth $1.6 billion annually as well.
That excludes the insurance liability cap on nuclear plants
which the United States taxpayer is on the hook for in the case
of a Fukushima- or Chernobyl-scale incident. Anything over $13
billion is the responsibility of the US government, hence
taxpayers. Since Fukushima’s total economic costs are likely to
be closer to a trillion USD than not if everything is counted
in, $13 billion doesn’t look like a lot.
HTML https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/20/us-subsidizes-fossil-fuels-to-the-tune-of-4-6-27-4-or-649-billion-annually-depending-on-source/
#Post#: 14672--------------------------------------------------
The Biggest Losers Of The US Shale Bust
By: Surly1 Date: December 4, 2019, 5:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Nothing new here for RR readers, but the bill has... finally...
come due. Sad. :)
Meet The Biggest Losers Of The US Shale Bust
HTML https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/meet-biggest-losers-us-shale-bust
[html]<p><a
href="
HTML https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Meet-The-Biggest-Losers-Of-The-US-Shale-Bust.html"><em>Authored<br
/>by Anes Alic via OilPrice.com,</em></a></p> <p>After a
decade of unprecedented growth and seemingly endless
investments, <strong>the writing is now on the wall:</strong>
the Great American Shale Boom is slowing down and this could
have some<strong> grave consequences </strong>both the industry
and the financial markets. </p> <p><a
data-image-external-href=""
data-image-href="/s3/files/inline-images/d73f775ec56a189e7e1e736
87d3f24f3.jpg?itok=ueFzLrVn"
data-link-option="0"
href="safari-reader://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/d
73f775ec56a189e7e1e73687d3f24f3.jpg?itok=ueFzLrVn"><picture><sou
rce
srcset="
HTML https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/d73f775ec56a189e7e1e73687d3f24f3.jpg?itok=7_Hvo-mI<br
/>1x" media="all and (min-width: 1280px)" type="image/jpeg"
/><source
srcset="
HTML https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/d73f775ec56a189e7e1e73687d3f24f3.jpg?itok=7_Hvo-mI<br
/>1x" media="all and (min-width: 480px)" type="image/jpeg"
/><source
srcset="
HTML https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/d73f775ec56a189e7e1e73687d3f24f3.jpg?itok=7_Hvo-mI<br
/>1x,
HTML https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/d73f775ec56a189e7e1e73687d3f24f3.jpg?itok=7_Hvo-mI<br
/>2x" media="all and (min-width: 1024px)" type="image/jpeg"
/><source
srcset="
HTML https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/d73f775ec56a189e7e1e73687d3f24f3.jpg?itok=7_Hvo-mI<br
/>1x" media="all and (min-width: 768px)" type="image/jpeg"
/><source
srcset="
HTML https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/d73f775ec56a189e7e1e73687d3f24f3.jpg?itok=ueFzLrVn<br
/>1x" type="image/jpeg" /><img data-entity-type="file"
data-entity-uuid="56e21d68-eac5-46f3-8b86-8286409de1b9"
data-responsive-image-="" height="209" width="500"
src="
HTML https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/d73f775ec56a189e7e1e73687d3f24f3.jpg"<br
/>alt="" typeof="foaf:Image" /></picture></a></p> <p><strong
>A
total of 32 oil and gas drillers have <a
href="
HTML https://www.haynesboone.com/Publications/energy-bankruptcy-monitors-and-surveys">filed<br
/>for bankruptcy</a> through the third quarter, with the total
number of bankruptcy filings since 2015 now clocking in at more
than 200.</strong></p> <p>Unlike Phase 1 of the oil bust
that featured shale production declining due to an epic global
price collapse, the current slowdown is being driven partly by
industry-wide <a
href="
HTML https://www.wsj.com/articles/shale-boom-is-slowing-just-when-the-world-needs-oil-most-11569795047">core<br
/>operational issues</a>, including declining production due to
wells being drilled too close to one another as well as
production sweet spots running out too soon. </p> <p>Yet,
the most important underlying theme precipitating the collapse
is a growing financial squeeze as banks and investors pull in
the reins and demand that shale drillers prioritize
profitability over production growth.</p> <p>The shale
industry has been built on mountains of debt and the day of
reckoning is finally here. </p> <p>As many company
executives who hoped to drill their way out of debt are
belatedly discovering, trying to squeeze a profit from
shale-fracking operations is akin to trying to draw blood from
stone with the industry having racked up cumulative losses
estimated at <a
href="
HTML https://www.wsj.com/articles/wall-streets-fracking-frenzy-runs-dry-as-profits-fail-to-materialize-1512577420">more<br
/>than a quarter of a trillion dollars</a>.</p> <p>From the
Permian of the Southwest to the Eagle Ford in Texas and the
Bakken of central North America, the future is looking decidedly
bleak for shale companies that racked up the most debt and
expanded too aggressively.</p> <h3><u><strong>Bingeing on
debt</strong></u></h3> <p><strong>Chesapeake Energy Corp.
</strong>(NYSE:CHK) is widely considered the posterchild of
debt-fueled shale investments <a
href="
HTML https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/This-US-Shale-Giant-Is-On-The-Brink-Of-Collapse.html">gone<br
/>woefully wrong</a>. A decade ago, the company’s deceased
CEO, Aubrey McClendon (aka the Shale King), was the highest paid
Fortune 500 CEO. McClendon had a rather unusual <em>modus
operand</em>i: instead of trying to sell oil and gas, he was
essentially flipping real estate using borrowed money to acquire
leases to drill on land, then reselling them for 5x- 10x
more.</p> <p>He was unapologetic about it, too, claiming it
was far more profitable than the drilling
business.</p> <p>McClendon’s aggressive leasing
tactics finally landed him in trouble with the Oklahoma
authorities before he was killed in a car crash shortly after
being indicted. </p> <p>He left the company that he founded
in a serious liquidity crunch and corporate governance issues
from which Chesapeake has never fully recovered--CHK stock has
crashed from an all-time high of $64 a share under McClendon in
2008 to $0.60 currently. </p> <p>The shares plunged 30% in
early November after management fired a warning that the company
was at risk of defaulting on an important leverage covenant,
something that would trigger the entire balance immediately
coming due:</p> <blockquote> <p>‘‘<em>If
continued depressed prices persist, combined with the scheduled
reductions in the leverage ratio covenant, our ability to comply
with the leverage ratio covenant during the next 12 months will
be adversely affected, which raises substantial doubt about our
ability to continue as a going
concern.</em>’’</p> </blockquote> <h3><u><st
rong>Unmitigated
disaster for shareholders </strong></u></h3> <p>Yet, if
shale companies are having it rough, shale investments have been
nothing short of disastrous for individual shareholders and
investors.</p> <p>As Steve Schlotterbeck, former CEO of
largest natural gas producer EQT,<a
href="
HTML https://www.shaledirectories.com/blog/former-eqt-ceo-scolds-his-industry-big-time/"><br
/>has attested</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“The
shale gas revolution has frankly been an unmitigated disaster
for any buy-and-hold investor in the shale gas industry with
very few limited exceptions. In fact, I'm not aware of another
case of a disruptive technological change that has done so much
harm to the industry that created the
change.”</em></p> </blockquote> <p>According to
Schlotterbeck, the scale of value destruction has been
mind-boggling with the average shale company obliterating 80% of
its value (excluding capital) over the past
decade.</p> <p>Chesapeake and the 200+ companies that have
gone under should serve as a cautionary tale for an industry
that’s big on promises and loves to finance its big
ambitions on borrowed dimes with little to show for it in the
way of profits. </p> <p>Yet, the vicious cycle of high debt,
high cash burn and poor returns refuses to go away. Starved for
cash, energy companies have devised a new instrument with which
to court investors and continue bankrolling their operations:
shale bonds. These companies are now floating asset-backed
securities wherein producers transfer ownership interests to
investors with proceeds from the wells used to pay off the
bonds.</p> <p>A good case in point is Denver-based oil and
gas company Raisa Energy LLC, which closed the first shale bond
offering in September. Raisa will pay nearly 6% interest on the
best quality wells, with higher rates offered on riskier assets.
</p> <p>After years of low interest rates, fixed-income
investors are finding junk bonds increasingly attractive and
might find the lure of shale bonds irresistible. But these bonds
are a potentially high-risk investment considering that modeling
future production remains an inexact science due to the complex
geology of shale basins.</p> <p>Investors will only have
companies’ estimates when trying to model potential
returns, never mind the fact that there are literally thousands
of shale wells that are pumping well below forecasts.
</p> <p>To get a better grasp of the underlying risks,
consider <strong>Whiting Petroleum</strong> (NYSE: WLL) whose
June 2018 unsecured bonds recently traded as low as 57.8 cents
on the dollar.</p> <p>It’s not just retail investors
getting torched in this shale snafu. </p> <p><a
href="
HTML https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-21/billionaire-fracking-brothers-hammered-by-permian-investments">Bloomberg<br
/>has reported</a> that former shale billionaires Farris and Dan
Wilks have seen their Permian shale investments decimated in the
latest oil bust.</p> <h3><u><strong>Energy
independence</strong></u></h3> <p>As Schlotterbeck
deadpanned: </p> <blockquote> <p><em>“Nearly every
American has benefited from shale gas, with one big
exception--the shale gas
investors.”</em></p> </blockquote> <p>No one can
deny that the US shale industry has been highly beneficial to
the country in a number of ways. For starters, it has helped to
lower gas and energy prices for the consumer while freeing the
nation from over-dependence on oil imports. Indeed, in November,
the US posted its first full month as a net exporter of crude
oil in 70 years, with Rystad Energy predicting the country is
only months away from achieving <a
href="
HTML https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-29/u-s-posts-first-month-in-70-years-as-a-net-petroleum-exporter?srnd=markets-vp">total<br
/>energy independence</a>.</p> <p><strong>But unless these
companies can figure a way to drill profitably and stem the
ballooning debts, this is going to continue being a race to the
bottom with investors at the bottom of the totem pole paying the
highest price.</strong></p>[/html]
#Post#: 15514--------------------------------------------------
Cutting Fossil Fuel Subsidies Could Be Even More Beneficial Than
We Realized
By: AGelbert Date: February 7, 2020, 6:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-061217183404.png
By Dharna Noor Today 8:30AM • Filed to: 🦕🦖
FOSSIL FUEL
[center] [img
width=200]
HTML http://graysondemocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/end-oil.jpg[/img]<br
/>[/center]
[center]Cutting Fossil Fuel Subsidies Could Be Even More
Beneficial Than We Realized [img width=70
height=40]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-060518153110.png[/img][/center]
The world wastes trillions of dollars every year on fossil fuel
direct and indirect subsidies. Trillions! The U.S. alone spends
hundreds of billions of dollars on them, ten times as much as it
spends on education.
Full article
HTML https://earther.gizmodo.com/cutting-fossil-fuel-subsidies-could-be-even-more-benefi-1841500311?utm_source=earther_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020-02-07<br
/>[img
width=40]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-120818184310-1635923.gif[/img]<br
/>
[center][img
width=400]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-170218174458.png[/img]<br
/>[/center]
#Post#: 16646--------------------------------------------------
The End Polluter Welfare Act
By: AGelbert Date: May 15, 2021, 12:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=times new roman]Senator Leahy[/font]
<Senator_Leahy@leahy.senate.gov>
Thu, May 13, 10:26 AM (2 days ago)
to me
Dear Mr. Gelbert:
Thank you for contacting me about reining in subsidies for
fossil fuel companies. I appreciate hearing from you about this
important issue.
Climate change poses an existential threat to our planet and all
who live here. Yet responsibility for this crisis is not shared
evenly. For decades, fossil fuel companies have known about
anthropogenic climate change and their sector’s contribution to
it and spent millions of dollars promoting climate denial and
disinformation. In fact, the twenty largest fossil fuel
companies account for more than a third of global greenhouse gas
emissions in the modern era. Despite this, they continue to
receive direct federal subsidies and benefit from significant
tax loopholes. I strongly believe that it is time to transition
away from fossil fuels and invest in renewable energy
infrastructure and a just transition to a green economy. One of
the goals of President Biden’s American Jobs Plan is to
eliminate tax preferences for fossil fuels and to make sure
polluting industries pay for environmental clean-up. As
Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I look forward
to working with President Biden and my colleagues in the Senate
to achieve these goals.
On April 15, 2021, [font=times new roman]Senator Bernie
Sanders[/font] introduced the End Polluter Welfare Act. [img
width=40]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-120818185037-16412296.gif[/img]<br
/>This bill would close a number of tax loopholes and eliminate
an
estimated $150 billion in federal subsidies over the next decade
for the oil, gas, and coal industries. [img
width=30]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-210818180844.png[/img][img<br
/>width=70
height=40]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-060518153110.png[/img]<br
/>It has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee, of which
I
am not a member. Please know that I will keep your thoughts in
mind should the End Polluter Welfare Act or any legislation
related to the fossil fuel industry come before the full Senate
for consideration.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
PATRICK LEAHY
United States Senator
[img
width=90]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-221017161839.png[/img]
[center][img
width=400]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-170218174458.png[/img][/center]
#Post#: 16737--------------------------------------------------
The Invisible Fossil Fuel Subsidies are Worse Than the Obvious O
nes!
By: AGelbert Date: June 25, 2021, 11:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders <Senator@sanders.senate.gov>
Jun 24, 2021, 2:01 PM to me
Dear Mr. Gelbert:
Thank you for contacting me to voice your support for ocean
conservation. Like you, I support protecting and restoring the
health of our oceans, fisheries, and coastal economies.
As you know, our oceans play a key role in human and
environmental health. In fact, the ocean produces more than half
of the world’s oxygen, and is crucial to planetary climate
regulation. It also stores 50 times more carbon dioxide than our
atmosphere, and is home to an estimated one million species of
animals. In light of the increasing number of threats facing our
oceans – including warming temperatures, ocean acidification,
and marine pollution – I believe we must take immediate action
to preserve our precious marine ecosystems for future
generations.
That is why I cosponsored the Thirty by Thirty Resolution to
Save Nature last Congress, which establishes the goal of
conserving at least 30 percent of our nation’s ocean and land by
2030. I also cosponsored the COAST Anti-Drilling Act, the Stop
Arctic Ocean Drilling Act, and the West Coast Ocean Protection
Act to prohibit drilling on the outer Continental Shelf and the
Arctic. Lastly, I cosponsored the Shark Fin Sales Elimination
Act, which helps to address the precipitous decline in shark
populations around the world by prohibiting the sale, transport,
or purchase of shark fins and shark fin products.
As a member of the Senate environment and natural resources
committees, and as a longtime supporter of marine conservation
programs, please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind
should the Senate consider legislation on ocean conservation.
Sincerely,
BERNARD SANDERS
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-120818185039-1655102.gif
United States Senator
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders <Senator@sanders.senate.gov>
Jun 24, 2021, 2:10 PM to me
Dear Mr. Gelbert:
Thank you for contacting me to voice your concerns with the
Growing Climate Solutions Act. I have heard from a number of
Vermonters like you who are concerned with the impacts of this
bill on small farmers and our environment, which is why I voted
against this legislation.
As you know, agriculture and land use practices can be hugely
effective in sequestering carbon, making farming, ranching and
forestry an important part of the fight against climate change.
The Growing Climate Solutions Act would expand the involvement
of farmers and foresters in the carbon market by establishing
the Greenhouse Gas Technical Assistance Provider and Third-Party
Verifier Certification Program, which would allow the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide resources to private
landowners on participating in the carbon market. However, as
you mentioned in your letter, there are concerns that this bill
would exacerbate pollution in low-income communities and
communities of color, and would strengthen corporate agriculture
while hurting small farms.
Please know I will keep your concerns in mind as I continue to
support legislation that addresses the existential threat of
climate change.
Sincerely,
BERNARD SANDERS
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-120818185039-1655102.gif
United States Senator
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders <Senator@sanders.senate.gov>
Jun 24, 2021, 2:12 PM to me
Dear Mr. Gelbert:
Thank you for contacting me to voice your support for the Block
All New (BAN) Oil Exports Act. You will be pleased to know that
I am an original cosponsor of this important piece of
legislation.
As you may know, the United States is expected to be the largest
oil and liquefied natural gas exporter in the next few years. In
fact, national crude oil and products exports has increased 770
percent since 2006. As the wealthiest country on the planet and
the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the United
States needs to lead the fight against global climate change,
and that means swiftly transitioning away from dirty fossil
fuels and toward clean, renewable sources of energy.
That is why I joined Senators Markey, Merkley, and Wyden in
reintroducing the BAN Oil Exports Act, which would reinstate the
ban on exporting American crude oil and natural gas abroad. This
bill would also impose restrictions on the export of other
harmful products, including coal, petroleum products and
petrochemical feedstocks. The BAN Oil Exports Act is currently
before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs, of which I am not a member. Please know I will keep
your thoughts in mind as I continue to support this bill and
other efforts to address climate change.
Thank you again for contacting me, and please feel free to stay
in touch about this or any other subject of interest to you. For
up-to-date information on what I am working on, please sign-up
for my e-newsletter, the Bernie Buzz, at
HTML https://www.sanders.senate.gov/contact/newsletter-signup.
[img
width=25
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png[/img]
Sincerely,
BERNARD SANDERS [img
width=40]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-120818185037-16412296.gif[/img]<br
/>[img
width=40]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-120818185038-16442135.gif[/img]
[font=times new roman]United States Senator[/font]
#Post#: 17017--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than th
e Obvious Ones!
By: AGelbert Date: October 25, 2021, 3:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move]“The House bill made a decent start by targeting Big Oil’s
international tax loopholes, but it went nowhere near far
enough,” said Lukas Ross, Climate and Energy Justice Program
Manager at Friends of the Earth. The dual capacity loophole,
which allows oil companies substantial latitude to potentially
misrepresent royalties and other payments to foreign governments
as creditable tax payments, would raise at least another $1.4
billion; other estimates put the number much higher. [/move]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-251021164720.png[/img][/center]
[center]New Report Reveals Big Oil’s $86B Offshore Tax
Bonanza[img
width=80]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418193910.gif[/img][img<br
/>width=40]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418201722.png[/img][/center]
New research by BailoutWatch, Friends of the Earth, and Oxfam
reveals a trove of international tax subsidies that exclusively
benefit a handful of [img
width=70]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418203402.gif[/img]<br
/>multinational polluters.
Read more
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-111018132422-1692935.gif
HTML https://bailoutwatch.org/analysis/new-report-reveals-big-oils-86b-offshore-tax-bonanza
[move][font=impact]The 🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 👹
Hellspawn Fossil Fuelers DID THE Clean Energy Inventions
suppressing, Climate Trashing, Government corrupting, human
health depleting CRIME. Since [Color=Brown]they have ALWAYS BEEN
liars and conscience free [img
width=30]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-200419205214.png[/img][img<br
/>width=50]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418193910.gif[/img]crooks,<br
/>they are trying to AVOID [/color]DOING THE TIME or PAYING THE
FINE! Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on![/font] [img
width=30]
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-300919160023-2284203.png[/img][/move]
#Post#: 17143--------------------------------------------------
Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Ob
vious Ones!
By: AGelbert Date: December 5, 2021, 8:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3/3-051221212752.png[/img][/center]
Dec 5, 2021 45,984 views
[center]Exploring the TRUE cost of ditching hydrocarbon
fuels.[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/HpCAmGtvmeU[/center]
Just Have a Think 362K subscribers
Fossil fuels are inextricably linked to our everyday lives and
it'll be impossible to phase them out in the next three decades.
At least that's what the fossil fuel industry would have you
believe. But new studies have looked at precisely what we DO
need to do to rapidly rid ourselves of the largest historical,
and current, cause of the global climate emergency.
#Post#: 17153--------------------------------------------------
... bill would scrap special tax treatment. Instead, they might
hand the oil and gas industry a new subsidy.
By: AGelbert Date: December 10, 2021, 5:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
E&E NEWS
By Nick Sobczyk, Heather Richards | 12/10/2021 06:25 AM EST
[move]Progressives set out to write a reconciliation bill that
would scrap special tax treatment for fossil fuel companies.
Instead, they might hand the oil and gas industry a new subsidy.
[img
width=100]
HTML http://media.tumblr.com/c6492e4b47cfdbd50e74d285fde3c53e/tumblr_inline_mm3g4yCaZc1qz4rgp.gif[/img][/move]
[center]‘It’s grotesque’: Inside the Hill methane fight
HTML https://www.eenews.net/articles/its-grotesque-inside-the-hill-methane-fight/?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=193618504&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-84dgM3VFeZWQDWYSikL5oH0DAf3aQY42Q0ZShM5Do1pLyhg0LvA1Nppk_uBsg9Z-wOLT07VOnX_Djw8_jyFxR6dsJJvg&utm_content=193618504&utm_source=hs_email<br
/>[img
width=70]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-120818204546.gif[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=224]
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-240316150731.png[/img][img<br
/>width=396]
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3/3-041221202255.png[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3/3-191121131711.png[/img][/center]
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page