DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Fossil Fuel Folly
*****************************************************
#Post#: 4982--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: April 26, 2016, 9:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: Below please find a line of doubletalk and
science free bullshit that is typical of the fossil fuel
industry influence over the U.S. government. This "study" is the
fig leaf that the fossil fuelers will now use to cut corners on
their rig structure and flood the arctic with rigs considered
"safe".
A few years from now, the fossil fuel industry lawyers will turn
to this very "study" when one of their platforms in the arctic
causes a massive oil Deep Horizon style blow out from a large
chunk of ice impacting and toppling a rig, killing thousands of
fish and other arctic marine and land life, as well as polluting
the beaches nearby.
They will seek, as they successfully did in the Exxon Valdez
disaster and the Deep Horizon disaster, to limit the liability
of the oil rig owner to less than a tenth of the ACTUAL damage
visited on the biosphere.
Have a nice day.
[center]Existing Offshore Platforms Strong Enough for Arctic
Operations, BSEE Study Finds[/center]
April 25, 2016 by gCaptain
The U.S Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE)
has determined the designs of existing offshore platforms are
strong enough to survive extreme Arctic conditions and sea ice
experienced offshore northern Alaska in the Chukchi and Beaufort
Seas.
[center]
[img
width=440]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010215143525.png[/img]<br
/>[/center]
The determination [img
width=160]
HTML http://www.whydidyouwearthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7j9nik8Wf1qaxxwjo1_5001.jpeg[/img]<br
/>was made following a recently completed research study by the
BSEE, in partnership with the University of Alaska, that
examined the ability of current offshore structural designs to
successfully survive sea ice demands under extreme Arctic
conditions.
The objective of the study was to produce information that will
be used to supplement current standards and recommendations such
as ISO 19906 Standard: Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries –
Arctic Offshore Structures. The findings of the study are to
support regulatory decision making and ensures that industry
operations offshore incorporate the best available and safest
technologies as required by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act and Energy Policy Act.
Over a two-year period, researchers gathered data from 16
seasons of ice measurements from the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas,
providing comparisons of various sea ice parameters like first
and last ice occurrence, level of ice, rubble fields, ridges and
ice movement. After a full analysis, the research team was then
able to analyze a range of annual values to develop averages and
draw conclusions from what was witnessed.
The study identified critical keel depth and provided an
assessment of the suitability of the current ISO 19906
recommendations for estimating global ice forces on offshore
structures. Following the collection of additional data,
analysis and thorough review of recorded events, the researchers
concluded that it appears the current standard of practice cited
in ISO 19906 is conservative for current structural design
parameters and is capable of surviving the demands from sea ice.
[center] [img
width=300]
HTML http://memecrunch.com/meme/5L3XX/spiderman-bullshit-detector/image.jpg?w=544&c=1[/img][/center]
BSEE has a dedicated program coordinator in Alaska who assists
with identifying research that advances BSEE’s regulatory
objectives in the Arctic. There are currently seven studies
ongoing that assess offshore engineering technology and
conditions operators face in harsh Arctic conditions. All of
these efforts assist BSEE in understanding how conditions in the
Arctic could impact future regulatory standards.
The sea ice study will be presented when the Bureau hosts
representatives from regulatory authorities of six Arctic
nations next week in Washington, D.C. as part of a meeting of
the Arctic Offshore Regulators Forum (AORF).
The AORF, which addresses a specific recommendation of the
Arctic Council’s Task Force on Arctic Marine Oil Pollution
Prevention, is an Arctic forum of technical and operational
offshore petroleum safety regulators whose members are dedicated
to the common cause of continually improving offshore safety
outcomes.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-220216203149.gif<br
/>
Its primary scope is the exchange of information, best practices
and relevant experiences learned from regulatory efforts related
to [i]developing petroleum resources in the Arctic.[/I]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
[center]
[img
width=160]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img][/center]
HTML https://gcaptain.com/existing-offshore-platforms-strong-enough-for-arctic-operations-bsee-study-finds/
#Post#: 5021--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: May 2, 2016, 1:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
[img
width=600]
HTML http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/climatehawksvote/pages/48/meta_images/original/CHV_Logo2.jpg?1430847358[/img][/center]
[center]There's a lot of talk about fighting the power of Big
Oil's political money, but too often it feels like we can't make
a difference. Here's one key opportunity.[/center]
In California’s 44th Congressional district, the contrast
between the two leading candidates couldn’t be clearer. Nanette
Barragán stands for clean air, clean water, and a better future
for the working class families of her district. Isadore Hall
cozies up to Big Oil, Big Tobacco, and the gambling industry.
It’s a very competitive primary in a deep blue district.
Nanette Barragán fights Big Oil. [quote]As mayor pro tem of
Hermosa Beach, she stumped for “No On O” to keep oil exploration
out of her city and off Los Angeles-area beaches, and won in a
landslide. [/quote]Barragán is the 12th child of Mexican
immigrants, a fact that matters in a district that is 70 percent
Latino. She’s passionate about bringing good, clean jobs to her
district.
[center][img
width=440]
HTML http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/tbrnews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/c/11/c11c0434-1a98-11e5-b242-eb22f94e0d08/558aed3cef8b5.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C938[/img][/center]
[center]Nanette Barragán[/center]
By sharp contrast, her primary opponent fights for Big Oil.
Isadore Hall III has worked to shield oil and gas companies from
carbon pollution fees, to protect them from fracking-chemical
disclosure, and voted in support of natural-gas pipelines for
his campaign donor Sempra Energy.
[center][img
width=440]
HTML http://sacobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/isadore-hall-450x282.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]Isadore Hall III [/center]
Hall's campaign is funded by the gambling, tobacco, and oil
industries. In the state Senate, Hall chairs the Governmental
Organization committee in charge of regulating gambling and
tobacco. Those industries are not allowed to give to his state
Senate campaign — so they’ve been giving to his Congressional
campaign. Under his leadership, the committee has become well
known for stalling, tabling, amending, and killing tobacco
legislation opposed by his donors.
Hall has received nearly $150,000 from the oil and gas industry
in campaign contributions, and if elected he’ll be California’s
oiliest Democrat for a long time.
The seat is open, as the incumbent Janice Hahn is retiring.
Thanks to California’s top-two rule, the top two vote-getters in
June will face each other again in November — so Nanette needs
to make a strong showing now to be able to win this fall.
Climate Hawks Vote endorsed early, nearly a year before the
primary in this solidly Democratic district. We’ve been joined
by Democracy For America, US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY),
the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters, Emily’s
List, BOLD PAC and PODER PAC, many members of Congress, and
local leaders. But Hall has corporate support and the backing of
the California Democratic machine — so we can’t rest easy.
With a June 7 primary approaching, our plan is to begin an
aggressive outreach program to identify and turn out Barragán
supporters in this highly diverse district. We’re hiring Spanish
and Tagalog speakers to reach newly registered Democrats and
other high-reward voters in California’s open primary. This
low-cost, high-return effort will also be turning out new Bernie
Sanders voters for the crucial presidential primary.
[center]
[img
width=200]
HTML http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/climatehawksvote/pages/48/meta_images/original/CHV_Logo2.jpg?1430847358[/img][/center]
[move]
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gif
If
you know anyone who lives in California’s 44th Congressional
district, please send this to them and ask them to pass it on to
their friends and neighbors.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-028.gif[/move]
#Post#: 5048--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: May 5, 2016, 2:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
Groups Sue
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2mo5pow.gif
EPA
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif
Demanding Stricter
Fracking Waste Rules[/center]
Natural Resources Defense Council | May 5, 2016 10:14 am
A coalition of community and environmental organizations filed a
federal lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Wednesday calling for regulations to stop oil and gas
companies from disposing and handling drilling and fracking
wastes in ways that threaten public health and the environment.
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Fracking_waste_750.jpg[/img]
[/center]
[center]Fracking fluid and other drilling wastes are dumped into
an unlined pit. Photo credit: Faces of Fracking / Flickr
[/center]
[quote]“Waste from the oil and gas industry is very often toxic
and should be treated that way,” [/quote]Amy Mall, senior policy
analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said. “Right
now, companies can get rid of their toxic mess in any number of
dangerous ways—from spraying it on icy roads, to sending it to
landfills with our everyday household trash, to injecting it
underground where it can endanger drinking water and trigger
earthquakes. EPA must step in and protect our communities and
drinking water from the carcinogens, radioactive material and
other dangerous substances that go hand-in-hand with oil and gas
waste.”
The organizations are pushing the EPA to issue rules that
address problems including the disposal of fracking wastewater
in underground injection wells, which accept hundreds of
millions of gallons of oil and gas wastewater and have been
linked to numerous earthquakes in Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas,
New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas.
[quote]“Updated rules for oil and gas wastes are almost 30 years
overdue and we need them now more than ever,”[/quote] Adam Kron,
senior attorney at the Environmental Integrity Project, said.
“Each well now generates millions of gallons of wastewater and
hundreds of tons of solid wastes and yet EPA’s inaction has kept
the most basic, inadequate rules in place. The public deserves
better than this.”
The groups filing suit include the Environmental Integrity
Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthworks,
Responsible Drilling Alliance, San Juan Citizens Alliance, West
Virginia Surface Owners’ Rights Organization, and the Center for
Health, Environment and Justice.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia, calls on the court to set strict deadlines for the
EPA to comply with its long-overdue obligations to update waste
disposal rules that should have been revised more than a quarter
century ago.
The organizations are urging the EPA to ban the practice of
spreading fracking wastewater onto roads or fields, which allows
toxic pollutants to run off and contaminate streams. And the EPA
should require landfills and ponds that receive drilling and
fracking waste to be built with adequate liners and structural
integrity to prevent spills and leaks into groundwater and
streams.
The groups filed a notice of their intent to sue the EPA last
August, warning the agency a lawsuit would follow unless it
complied with its duty under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) to review and revise the federal regulations
and guidelines governing how oil and gas waste must be handled
and disposed. RCRA requires that the EPA review the regulations
and state plan guidelines at least every three years and, if
necessary, revise them. The agency determined in 1988 that such
revisions of the regulations were necessary to address specific
concerns with oil and gas wastes, yet has failed to meet its
legal responsibility to act for nearly three decades.
[center]Background
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mocantina.gif
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
[/center]
Over the last decade, the oil and gas industry’s fracking-based
boom has produced a vast amount of solid and liquid waste. Each
well produces millions of gallons of wastewater and hundreds of
tons of drill cuttings, which contain contaminants that pose
serious risks to human health. These include known carcinogens
such as benzene, toxic metals such as mercury and radioactive
materials. However, the current RCRA rules that govern oil and
gas wastes are too weak because they are the same rules that
apply to all “non-hazardous” wastes, including household trash.
As a result, oil and gas companies are disposing, storing,
transporting and handling these wastes in a number of
troublesome ways. These include: spraying fracking waste fluids
onto roads and land near where people live and work; disposing
of billions of gallons of oil and gas wastewater in underground
injection wells; sending the drill cuttings and fracking sands
to landfills not designed to handle toxic or radioactive
materials; and storing and disposing of wastewater in pits and
ponds, which often leak. Across the U.S., there are numerous
instances of wastes leaking out of ponds and pits into nearby
streams and the groundwater beneath and operators often “close”
the pits by simply burying the wastes on site.“
In 1988, the EPA promised [img
width=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280515145049.png[/img]<br
/> [img
width=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>to require oil and gas companies to handle this waste more
carefully,” said Aaron Mintzes, Policy Advocate for Earthworks.
“Yet neither EPA nor the states have acted. Today’s suit just
says 28 years is too long for communities to wait for
protections from this industry’s hazardous waste.”
The following are some examples of problems caused by the
improper disposal and handling of fracking and drilling waste:
•Ohio: Underground injection wells in Ohio accepted 1.2 billion
gallons of oil and gas wastewater for disposal in 2015, more
than double the amount in 2011. Half this wastewater came from
out of state. This has resulted in scores of earthquakes in the
well-dense Youngstown area, with one well alone linked to 77
earthquakes. The Ohio Oil and Gas Commission recently noted that
regulations “have not kept pace” with the problem and that (to
an extent) both the state and industry are “working with their
eyes closed.” Other states that have experienced increased
seismic events in the proximity of injection wells include
Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.
•Pennsylvania: In May 2012, a six-million-gallon industrial pond
holding fracking wastewater in Tioga County leaked pollutants,
including arsenic and strontium, through holes in its liner into
groundwater and a nearby trout stream.
•West Virginia: Oil and gas wastewater dumped or spilled in
rivers in West Virginia and Pennsylvania contains high levels of
potentially hazardous ammonium and iodide, according to a study
by Duke University scientists.
•North Dakota: In January 2015, three million gallons of
drilling wastewater spilled from a leaky pipe outside Williston,
polluting a tributary of the Missouri River. In July 2011, a
pipeline serving a well in Bottineau County leaked over two
million gallons of fracking wastewater, damaging 24 acres of
private land.
•Colorado: A contractor for a pipeline services firm gave a
detailed account of sand-blasting pulverized waste buildup
(called “scale”) from pipeline seals directly into the air
outdoors without a filter, even though such dust can be
radioactive and cause damage to lungs.
•Across the Marcellus region: Over the past several years,
landfills in states around the Marcellus shale formation—even in
New York, where fracking is prohibited—have experienced
increasing shipments of drill cuttings that contain high levels
of radiation. Many of the landfills do not test for radiation
and do not have adequate controls to prevent the often toxic and
radioactive “leachate” from seeping into groundwater.
“Although West Virginia has taken some steps to improve
regulation, the state’s approach has been to permit horizontal
drilling without carefully considering whether current methods
of waste disposal are appropriate or adequate,” Julie Archer,
project manager at the West Virginia Surface Owners Rights
Organization, said. “It’s past time for the EPA to provide clear
guidance on how these wastes should be handled to protect our
communities.”
EPA’s current regulations do not take into account [b]the
dangerous contents of oil and gas wastes or their unique
handling and disposal practices.
Since 1988, the agency has acknowledged the shortcoming of its
basic rules for solid waste management and has indicated that it
needs to create enhanced rules tailored to the oil and gas
industry. However, the agency has yet to take any action to
develop these updated regulations.
[center] [img width=200
height=100]
HTML http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg[/img]
[/center]
“A major reason for the industry’s use of injection wells to
dispose of toxic fracking waste is the low disposal cost,”
Teresa Mills, director of the Ohio field office for the Center
for Health, Environment and Justice, said. “We reject this
reasoning because the public’s health and safety must come
first.” [img width=100
height=60]
HTML http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png[/img]
“As an organization representing hundreds of families living in
close proximity to oil and gas operations, we see not only the
physical pollution, but also the psychological toll that oil and
gas waste exacts on communities,” Dan Olson, executive director
of the Colorado-based San Juan Citizens Alliance, said. “That
the EPA is 30 years overdue in creating common sense rules for
managing toxic waste from oil and gas operations is a cause of
great concern for everyone living near these sources of
improperly regulated industrial pollution.”
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2016/05/05/groups-sue-epa-fracking-waste/
Agelbert: This is why the "promise" of the EPA in 1988 was not
worth the paper it was printed on:
What really Happened at the EPA
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/corruption-in-government/msg3619/#msg3619<br
/>
Cathie Reid: You must get this action through and legislation
enacted ... before any further disastrous TTP or other "Investor
Protection and profit over Health and environmental/climate
sustainability" Acts are passed that strip civilization of the
frameworks and levers of equitable/peaceful prosperity.
frackugee: If the oil and gas industry are such great companies
that we sooo need and are on here all the time saying how
awesome they are(matt Jason) then they will have no problem
accepting the fact that their waste is hazardous material and
pay for that accordingly-oh wait that would stop the fracking
they do today immediately as they will not spend 46$ a barrel
for its proper disposal, that's right hazardous waste costs more
to dispose of correctly then oil and gas are worth and the
testing of the waste to determine what it is would blow the lid
off the toxic brew they create at every single well. They are
not good neighbor companies like they profess, every other
corporation in this country plays by rules not these guys and
they are called out on it all the time with video and complaints
to epa at state and fed level and are never held accountable
Shame on all of them
agelbert > frackugee:
Well said.
There is also ZERO excuse for the oil and gas "externalization"
of the toxic brew of gases they flare 24/7 at both land and
ocean rig sites. It's time they be ordered to capture and
package all those carcinogenic gases that they now dump on us
for profit over planet.
They KNOW how toxic those gases are because the ocean rigs have
a "water curtain" technology to keep the flared gas fumes from
degrading the health of rig workers.
[img
width=640]
HTML http://vertassets.blob.core.windows.net/image/e235b708/e235b708-88c9-4573-95df-3a3ec2845aab/q4000andenterprisesmall.jpg[/img]
[center][i]Water curtain in use - cleverly labeled "Water
Curtain Rig Cooling Offshore Heat Suppression" as if "heat" was
the anything but a side issue in the flared fumes toxins [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img][/center]
IOW, the oil and gas pigs are polluting the ocean near the rigs
along with the world's atmosphere. Flared gas fumes cause
respiratory illnesses in the short term and cancer and global
warming in the long term.
It's TIME the oil and gas corporations be STOPPED from polluting
for profit!
[move][I][font=impact]The Fossil Fuelers DID THE Climate
Trashing, human health depleteing 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[/font][/I][/move]
[center][img
width=240]
HTML https://allthoughtsworkoutdoors.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/p9047017-030close-up.jpg[/img][/center]
#Post#: 5092--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: May 13, 2016, 7:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]The arsonists of Fort McMurray have a name
[/center]
[move]Fossil fuel corporations are causing the climate change
fuelling mega-fires – and they should be footing the bill for
the devastation [/move]
(picture at story link)
A charred vehicle and homes are pictured in the Beacon Hill
neighbourhood of Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada, May 9, 2016
after wildfires forced the evacuation of the town. Photograph:
Chris Wattie/AFP/Getty Images
@Martin_Lukacs
Thursday 12 May 2016 08.23 EDT Last modified on Friday 13 May
2016 18.17 EDT
As the fire that ravaged Fort McMurray finally moves past the
city, and the province tallies the heartbreaking damage, a
search will begin to discover the source of the destruction.
Investigators will comb the nearby forests for clues, tracing
the fire’s path to what they call its “point of origin.” They’ll
interview witnesses, collect satellite imagery, and rule out
natural causes—much like the work of detectives.
Except in the age of climate change-fuelled mega-fires, this
truly is a crime scene.
Not, I mean, the handiwork of troublesome teenagers, nor a
campfire left accidentally burning. The devastation of Fort
McMurray is the predictable outcome of arson on an entirely
different scale.
These arsonists have a name and they’re hiding in plain
view—because their actions, at the moment, are still considered
legal. They’re the companies that helped turn the boreal forest
into a flammable tinder-box. The same companies that have
undermined attempts to rein in carbon emissions. The same
companies that, by their very design, chase profits with no mind
for the ecological and human consequences.
Yet in the fire’s aftermath, it has seemed impossible to name
them: fossil fuel corporations. Of course they’re not the only
ones who have fuelled climate change: all of us consume oil at
every level of our lives. But the record is clear that we are
not equally responsible: an astonishing 90 companies alone have
caused two-thirds of global carbon emissions. And all the oil
giants involved in the Alberta tar sands are among them:
ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Total, CNRL, Chevron.
Alberta wildfires leave Fort McMurray charred and desolate – in
pictures (pictures at story link)
In the last week, these corporations have escaped accountability
as quickly as ordinary Albertans have risen to action. Across
the province, people have opened their homes to evacuees,
offered gas, shared food. The most marginalized have given the
most: First Nations welcoming thousands to their communities;
Muslims praying for rain at the Alberta legislature; and Syrian
refugees, barely resettled in the province, gathering donations.
Stories of heroism have abounded: like the school principal who
drove a bus full of children out of the burning city, reuniting
each one with their families, and filling extra seats with
strangers from the roadside. At almost a moment’s notice, a
province often written off as dog-eat-dog individualists proved
the naysayers wrong: they have come together in a spirt of
fellowship and solidarity.
1:39 video (at story link)
[center] Alberta wildfires: key facts and figures in a historic
disaster
[/center]
Most of these people had no idea of the disaster that was
coming. But there were some who did: the corporate arsonists
themselves. As far back as forty-five years ago, certain
Canadian oil corporations already knew the lethal climate
consequences of their business model. Last month, building on
similar revelations about US companies, investigative reporters
discovered stunning proof in the archives of a Calgary museum—a
clue as good as any about this mega-fire’s “point of origin.”
An uncovered report produced in 1970 by Imperial Oil, the
Canadian branch of ExxonMobil, put it crystal clear: “Since
pollution means disaster to the affected species, the only
satisfactory course of action is to prevent it.” Except the oil
company proceeded to spend decades lying about what they knew,
and ensured the disaster would be as profound as possible.
Little wonder the same company report branded its own actions as
“anti-social.”
The very picture of anti-social? A fire ripping through a city.
The incineration of homes. Irreplaceable possessions and family
albums burned to ash. Climate refugees spilling across a
province and country, stripped of their livelihoods and
uncertain of their future.
A burnt vehicle in Fort McMurray, 10 May 2016 Photograph: Amru
Salahuddien/EPA (picture at story link)
Science may not show a direct link between climate change and
the existence of one particular fire, but there is no doubt why
the blaze that devoured the Alberta town was so powerful.
“We have loaded the dice for more extreme wildfires,” says Mike
Flannigan, a wildfire scientist at the University of Alberta.
“We attribute the increase in wildfires and their severity and
intensity to human-caused climate change. We’ve been saying it
for years. Many of us saw a Fort McMurray-like situation coming,
but none of us expected anything as horrific as what has
happened.”
Today, twice as much land in Canada is being devoured by fires
as in the 1970s—and that will double or quadruple again in the
decades to come. Climate change is putting such pressure on the
boreal, which covers most of northern Canada, that a study
published last year in the journal Science issued a stark
warning: “this forest will convert to a type of savannah.”
To remain mute about those responsible for this devastation is
not an act of sensitivity toward the citizens of Fort McMurray.
It is to stand idly by while these corporations move on to claim
their next victims. To argue, as prime minister Justin Trudeau
has, that making the connection between climate change and this
infernal fire isn’t “helpful,” is not a gesture of statesmanly
maturity. It is the prevarication of political cowards.
Other politicians have adopted an even more toxic approach: not
letting the crisis go to waste. Former Conservative natural
resources minister Joe Oliver argued on national television that
Trudeau should seize the fire as an opportunity to force through
a tar sands pipeline to the coast. And British Columbia premier
Christy Clark insisted the economic impact of the blaze could be
balanced by ramming oil and liquified natural gas projects
through the regulatory process—doubling down on what helped
cause this crisis in the first place. In the days ahead, watch
for this argument to grow even louder.
But the greatest model of insensitivity is this: the arsonists
don’t seem content with the burning of just one Canadian town.
The latest climate science has told us exactly how much fossil
fuels we can burn before we lock in catastrophic warming—warming
that will make today’s mega-fire look modest. But companies have
access to four or five times that amount in their reserves. They
plan to extract and burn it all.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs2277341.gif
[img
width=60]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img]
[center] [img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-240216231558.png[/img][/center]
If we want to contain warming to the Paris climate accord’s
target of 1.5 degrees, we will need to keep most fossil fuels in
the ground—to strand these assets and shift to clean energy. But
corporations have no such intention. “We don’t see any stranded
assets. We think all our assets will be required,” an ExxonMobil
spokesperson said after the signing of the Paris accord. It
“reinforces our approach,” Shell added. In other words, they’re
bent on arson on a global scale.
The law is finally catching up to this planet-altering
recklessness. In the United States, both California and New
York’s attorneys general are investigating ExxonMobil for
spending decades misleading the public about its knowledge of
the risks of climate change. Meanwhile, both Democratic
presidential candidates have joined the chorus of voices
demanding the federal Department of Justice join the
investigation. Last month, lawyers in the Philippines launched
another precedent-setting case: a lawsuit against fifty of the
world’s fossil fuel companies for damages the country has
suffered from climate change-driven hurricanes.
This path should show the way forward for Canada, entrenching a
basic moral principle: the polluter pays. Fossil fuel companies
shouldn’t be celebrated for the minimal corporate paternalism
they are now demonstrating—housing, feeding and flying evacuated
workers out of Fort McMurray and the surrounding work camps.
They should be footing the bill for the devastation. They
invested billions in an industry knowing it would prove
destructive to the air, water, climate, and health of Albertans?
It’s time to put our hands—through higher taxes, royalties, even
a public takeover—on some of their gargantuan profits, and use
them to transition to a new economy full of good clean jobs and
beyond these dangerous energy sources.
That would mean rejecting the lopsided sacrifice currently
demanded of us: that corporations derive the rewards while we
cover their damages. Canada’s fossil fuel companies have
vacuumed billions in profits out of Alberta, and used their
political influence to prevent the emergence of a more
diversified economy in a province with incredible renewable
energy potential. Yet the relief and recovery effort, which may
cost upward of $10bn, will be paid for by the government and
taxpayers. The donations offered by individual Canadians are a
testament to incredible generosity: they also represent an
outsourcing of responsibility.
But that spirit of solidarity and mutual aid, of compassion and
confidence in each other, is the best expression of ourselves.
It points the way forward. Two people tragically died in the
evacuation of Fort McMurray—but many more no doubt were saved,
by courage and heroism and the deep care and love for fellow
citizens that can flourish in a period of catastrophe. Such are
the values we will need to mount a collective fight against the
unfolding disaster of climate change.
Imagine these values actually governing our society—for a start,
relaxing EI rules to ensure dignity for all of the evacuated
workers. Imagine this resiliency, courage and generosity being
harnessed to lead the transition to a healthier, more just
post-carbon society—helping prevent even more extreme weather to
come. Imagine the rebuilding of Fort McMurray being not just a
page turned on an unprecedented disaster, but the beginning of a
new direction.
If that can happen, the smoke will truly lift from this country
and this town.
On Twitter: @Martin_Lukacs
HTML http://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2016/may/12/the-arsonists-of-fort-mcmurray-have-a-name
#Post#: 5110--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: May 18, 2016, 2:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
[img
width=340]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280714152422.png[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/files/2016/05/spiral_optimized.gif[/img][/center]
HTML http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2016/05/disastrous-climate-change-exposed-one-gif
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-270915171817.jpeg[/img][/center]
[quote author=MKing link=topic=559.msg103803#msg103803
date=1463531596]
I wonder what corrections, adjustments, extrapolations,
interpolations and correlations were used on what original
temperature data to create the cool graphic?
[/quote]
Well, considering the fact that you are a word twisting
propagandist out to justify the use of fossil fuels come hell or
high water, I don't wonder that you will engage in every hair
splitting excuse you can think of to question reality. The
answer to your futile, but clever, exercise in hairsplitting was
partially provided at the link to Thom Hartmann's article. But,
as usual, you prefer to snipe than to study.
HTML http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2016/05/disastrous-climate-change-exposed-one-gif
HTML http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2016/05/disastrous-climate-change-exposed-one-gif
[center] [img
width=100]
HTML http://pm1.narvii.com/5869/6a64193d6770c3afd17406c78686c0eda32ded1c_hq.jpg[/img][/center]
YOU, the alleged "expert" in supply and demand for fossil fuels,
continue to ignore the FACT that, at present, the world is
producing over 1,000,000 bpd MORE than it uses. YET, you have
the brass balls, or simply world class ignorance, to claim the
recent rise in the price of crude is "based on fundamentals",
instead of the commodities futures speculation CRAP that is
ACTUALLY making the price artificially go up.
But hey, congratulations are in order to your welfare queen
fossil fuel and nuclear pals. Just like YOU, they can't make any
money without stealing money from we-the-people, so the fossil
fuel OWNED politicians just rode in to BAIL DIRTY ENERGY ASSES
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/165fs373950.gif
OUT AGAIN.
[center]Happy day for [b]MKing [img
width=100]
HTML http://images.zaazu.com/img/cheers-cheers-champagne-wine-smiley-emoticon-000183-large.gif[/img]
and his biosphere math challenged, empathy deficit disordered
pals! [/b][/center]
[center] [img
width=640]
HTML http://img06.deviantart.net/bb6a/i/2011/120/f/6/corporate_pollution_by_jakejames-d3512u1.jpg[/img][/center]
05/16/2016 04:03 PM
[move]Fossil-Heavy Energy & Water Appropriations Bill Passes
Senate[/move]
SustainableBusiness.com News
Last week, the US Senate passed the first appropriations bill
for the 2017 budget, funding energy and water programs with
$37.5 billion.
We're surprised that it passed 90-8, given that it clearly
prioritizes fossil and nuclear energy over renewables. President
Obama threatens to veto it for that reason. Where are the
Democrats on this? ? ? ?
$9.3 billion of the $37.5 billion total is for nuclear weapons
programs. $808 million is cut from the non-defense side of the
Department of Energy, while the nuclear side gets $355 million
more to "ensure nuclear stockpile readiness."
The White House says, "The bill "fails to put us on an
achievable path toward doubling clean energy research and
development by FY2021. Specifically, the Administration objects
to the low funding levels provided for the Advanced Research
Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) and the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)."
"Funding at this level also would impede development of
solutions to reduce U.S. dependence on oil and reduce energy
waste, and undermine the Nation's competitiveness in the future
global clean energy economy," the White House continues.
Exactly What's Intended [img
width=60]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img]
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID)
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif
says the bill
prioritizes defense, nuclear weapons priorities and fossil fuel
R&D, while reining in President Obama's out-of-bounds renewable
energy agenda.
[center][img
width=440]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-111214174727.png[/img][/center]
It "rebalances the portfolio to provide a true all-of-the-above
strategy. It includes strong funding for nuclear energy,
providing research and development to ensure a safe, efficient,
reliable nuclear fleet, and laying the foundation for the next
generation of nuclear reactors. [img
width=30]
HTML http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/n/nuclear-emoticon.gif[/img]<br
/> [img width=50]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif[/img]
"It puts more money into fossil fuel [img
width=30]
HTML http://rs165.pbsrc.com/albums/u55/BJ_BOBBI_JO9/Summer%20and%20Spring%20activties/sterb038.gif~c100[/img]<br
/>energy and less into renewables [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img],<br
/>to ensure the nation is utilizing its abundant fossil energy
resources as efficiently and safely as possible, he says."
[center]
[img
width=300]
HTML http://memecrunch.com/meme/5L3XX/spiderman-bullshit-detector/image.jpg?w=544&c=1[/img][/center]
The one thing Democrats didn't budge on was the attempt to
undercut EPA's Waters of the US rule by eliminating its
funding. ::) It restores protection for two million miles of
streams and 20 million acres of wetlands, allowing it to
safeguard drinking water supplies for a third of Americans, and
for ecosystems. Calling it "massive overreach, it is currently
on hold by a federal court.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mocantina.gif
They also voted down an amendment from Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN) to
wind down the Energy Department's Advanced Vehicle Manufacturing
Loan program.
Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) says, "We cannot afford to bury our heads
in the sand on climate change. And yet, the energy efficiency
and renewable energy account would be funded at $248 million
below the president's request. An annual appropriations bill is
not the place to amend or significantly change the Clean Water
Act or restrict gun laws. These efforts year after year imperil
the appropriations process.
Some Details [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img]
Compared to Obama's 2017 budget, ARPA-E gets 16% less and EERE
gets a 26% cut for renewable energy, 27% less for sustainable
transportation and 20% less for energy efficiency.
Obama's budget doubles funding for clean energy R&D, as 20
nations promised to do under Mission Innovation at the Paris
Climate Summit. And it includes the nation's first carbon tax,
which would fund a 21st century low-carbon transportation
system.
Read our article, What's In Obama's 2017 Budget: Energy &
Environment, called "dead on arrival" by the [img
width=50]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418203402.gif[/img]<br
/>Congressional majority.
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26546<br
/>
On the positive side, Obama supports the bill's investments in
restoring aquatic ecosystems and helping communities reduce the
risk of floods - improving resilience against climate impacts.
It meets his budget request for restoration of the Louisiana
Coastal Area Ecosystem, Columbia River, South Florida Ecosystem,
and Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery.
The bill now goes to the House for a vote.
Read the White House statement on the appropriations bill:
Website:
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/114/s
aphr2028s_20160420.pdf
HTML http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/114/saphr2028s_20160420.pdf
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26546
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26546
[i]Agelbert NOTE:[/i] You may THINK you have won, MKing. But, as
usual, you have cognitive problems with cause and effect.
You see, the fossil fuel government in the USA is NOT going to
keep your precious welfare queen fossil fuel industry from going
the way of the dodo bird. Sure, you have obtained your typical
reprieve on we-the-people's money in the USA.
But you neglect the FACT, one that you have been eyeing over the
past decade and not said SH IT about in this forum, that fossil
fuels have been steadily losing energy market share, NOT because
of any renewable energy subsidy, but because they have ZERO fuel
costs. Once the Renewable energy infrastructure is installed
(which gets cheaper every year to manufacture and install),
fossil fuels simply cannot compete with ZERO clean energy fuel
costs.
YOU said, a couple of days ago (and you repeat that wishful
thinking frequently), that the fossil fuel industry would
recover when the price comes back up, as it did in the 1980's.
The problem with that thinking is that Dirty energy does not
have a snowball's chance in hell of recovering it's lost energy
market share from a 70 to 1 Renewable to fossil fuel new
generation installation rate.
This is not the 1980's, when the available renewable energy
(apart from hydro) was a drop in the energy market share bucket
compared to fossil fuels and nuclear power. But you desperately
want to believe it is.
The ONLY common thread between the 1980's and now is the WELFARE
QUEEN SWAG coming from the U.S. Government. You irresponsible
CROOKS talk about "responsibility" in business practices when
you get babied six ways from Sunday every time you get you ass
in a debt crack. HYPOCRITES! LIARS! CHEATS!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
Now that my rant is over ;D, this the message you may continue
to try to deny with your wishful thinking, Mr. Supply and Demand
Math Challenged Fossil Fuel Fascist:
No matter how much welfare queen swag you get from the fossil
fuel government and no matter how much your bought and paid for
politicians try to strange Renewable Energy by killing subsidies
and inventing rules, regulations and laws, like you did in the
1980's, there is NO WAY that the fossil fuel industry will EVER
be able to recapture their lost energy use market share in ANY
of the high Renewable Energy percentage countries like Scotland
(and Portugal and Costa Rica and Spain and the Netherlands and
Sweden and Norway and Germany - and so one, etc.).
No matter how many politicians the fossil fuel fascists BUY to
make fossil fuels artificially cheap through hidden and not so
hidden "subsidies" (free passes on pollution and government
money coerced from we-the-people), the fossil fuel industry
simply cannot compete with Renewable Energy.
And smart people in the USA, England, France, Australia, south
Africa, Italy, Japan (and so on - you get the idea) are
certainly NOT going to go back to fossil fuels with a ZERO fuel
cost on their current Renewable energy Infrastructure (which
gets cheaper to manufacture and install every year). Even the
"natural" gas fired power plants used for peak power grid demand
balancing that now use Fracked gas can be run from TRULY NATURAL
gas produced from methane harvesters on cattle and pig farms in
these countries. Germany is already doing quite a bit of animal
based methane harvesting with a nice side benefit that pumps out
a NON-fossil fuel based NATURAL fertilizer product added profit
stream. ;D
Continually shrinking market share is a death sentence for an
energy producer. That is why the fossil fuel industry is doomed
to shrink into bankrupt welfare queen, has been irrelevance.
Anybody that thinks we are in a repeat of the 1980's doesn't
know their ass from a hole in the ground.
#Post#: 5111--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: May 18, 2016, 5:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=MKing link=topic=4539.msg103645#msg103645
date=1463350261]
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=4539.msg103638#msg103638
date=1463344888]
Agelbert NOTE: A fossil fuel industry propagandist using the
MKing handle - he WON'T use his NAME
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp)<br
/>made an interesting claim recently. He said that he spoke to t
he
governor of North Dakota.
Exact Quote from MKing: [quote]I've actually spoken with the ND
Governor back when things were blowing and going, as well as the
Federal land managers of MT and ND, and there was a perspective
there of 40 years of drilling to be had. Discussing why that
might not be the most likely outcome, and that the amount of oil
they were counting on might not be as large as they expected,
was quite a chore. My presentation on this topic to Lynn Helms
went over better. [/quote] ::)
I rather doubt that.
[/quote]
Doubt it all you'd like, it doesn't change the facts. And I
won't mention the other folks in the room, because it would give
away the exact meeting, and my place in it.
[quote author=agelbert]
People who refuse to make their name public should not resort to
such puffery.
[/quote]
Who said anything about my name not being public? RE and Surly
have been going through my decades of science, not finding as
much as a misspelled word, are you saying they didn't include
you when passing this information around? You should ask for it.
And I have explained previously why I consider low profiles
quite excellent. Go reread that.
[quote author=agelbert]
But if some fossil fuel front man defending Fracking in North
Dakota did speak to the governor, I am certain the following was
accidently on purpose not mentioned in the conversation. ;)
Yes, the study was just published. But if you think the Frackers
were unaware of these ""externalized" costs dumped on
we-the-people so they could make more profit over planet, you do
not understand the MKings of this world. They know. They know.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp[/quote]
If I was a front man, they never would have let me in the door.
Get caught playing advocate as a scientist Anthony, and the
credibility that took decades to establish through proper
science can go right out the door.
[/quote]
A nice collection of non-answers from the MKing troll
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp,<br
/>as usual.
Your NAME, you know, the one on your birth certificate, is NOT
public until you post it HERE, just like I post mine, regardless
of whether Surly and RE AND Eddie are in on your precious
"Public" identity (that we "low life degree lacking plebeians"
aren't "worthy" of knowing).
What "facts"? You mean the Monday morning quaterbacking
bullshit? Post the "presentation" to the Governor of N.D. HERE
with all those "warnings" about how "things would get worse" for
fracking in the future or STFU.
Your "low profile" MO claim is only valid contingent on you not
making name dropping boasts about your "presentations" to a
state governor or your conference attendances with your "pal",
Harold Hamm. Otherwise, not using your name publicly is a cheap
dodge worthy of disdain.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif
When you post your NAME here, not just to the ADMINS, you MIGHT
get some credibility as one of Billionaire Fracker Harold Hamm's
FRONT MEN. You have alluded to that from time to time as if Hamm
was anything but a welfare queen, tax dodging, pollution
externalizing ASS HOLE.
Until then, I suggest you but your zero credibility boasts where
the sun doesn't shine, Mr. fossil fuel industry propagandist.
And as for your typical response to the following that you have
a degree and I don't, SO WHAT?
There are scores of engineers and scientists BOUGHT by the
fossil fuel and chemical industries with "advanced" degrees in
science that lie on a daily basis.
[center] [img
width=360]
HTML http://www.whydidyouwearthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7j9nik8Wf1qaxxwjo1_5001.jpeg[/img][/center]
I don't have a degree but I have forgotten more physics and
thermodynamics than you ever learned in your pathetic efforts to
justify fossil fuel industry profit over planet.
People like you still think human nutrient processing oxidation
for caloric intake is equivalent to hydrocarbon combustion
oxidation. People like you think enzyme mediated active
transport is something that goes on in a chemical factory.
People like you cannot see all the pollution holes in the
thermodynamic constants used to determine enthalpy of formation
of hydrocarbons using Hess's Law.
You claim, repeatedly (and erroneously), that fossil fuels are
"cheaper" than Renewable energy harvesting technologies.
Every time I or somebody else points out that the fossil fuel
industry CANNOT survive without subsidies, you change the
subject or resort to mockery and derision.
When someone PROVES that Fracking MUST FLARE (POLLUTE
WE-THE-PEOPLE) up to one third by volume the gases coming up a
fracked well in order to make a profit, you puff about your
"knowledge" and how "only ignorant people" question your
"eminent" scientific background INSTEAD OF TALKING FACTS.
When a post comes up PROVING you frackers MUST discharge your
wastewater crap free of any environmental regulatory constraints
(i.e. POLLUTE willy nilly) in order, and in addition to,
flaring, BECAUSE OF THE COSTS of avoiding said pollution, you
ignore the post.
And you have, FOR YEARS, denied the FACT that over 90% of all
well casings in fracked wells leak CRAP into the aquifers within
five years.
You have consistently DENIED the fact that, had Cheney not gamed
the water quality laws to give Fracking a polluting
free-for-all, there would BE NO FRACKING BOOM, PERIOD.
YOU and the BASTARDS you represent made money BECAUSE, and ONLY
BECAUSE, you could POLLUTE your way to obtaining the fossil
fuels AND be welfare queen subsidized on top of that!
AND ALL those posts about Fracking piggery are based on PEER
REVIEWED scientific studies, not on my opinion.
YET, you ALWAYS try to make this about me instead of the subject
of the ECONOMIC STUPIDITY and environmental HARM of fossil
fuels.
And YOU do that because you don't have an argument.
So you have a degree. SO WHAT? There are scores of engineers and
scientists that have one that lie for money on a daily basis.
You are one of them.
#Post#: 5112--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: May 18, 2016, 6:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: This article is a little over two monts old. But
the information is instructive in showing HOW the crude oil
"supply" is gamed DOWN to engineer
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>a higher price based on, "Fundamentals" of demand. So, when yo
u
look at those EIA numbers MKing likes to trot out to defend
"fundamentals" of supply and demand, take a grain of salt to the
"prudent case for future fossil fuel industry recovery through
higher prices" BULLSHIT.
[center]The Curious Case Of The 550 Million Missing Barrels Of
Crude Oil ;)[/center]
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/09/2016
SNIPPET 1:
[quote]As Reuters reports, crude oil production exceeded
consumption by an average of 0.9 million barrels per day in 2014
and 2.0 million bpd in 2015. Of this 1 billion barrels which the
IEA believes was produced but not consumer, some 420 million are
said to be stored on land in OECD member countries and another
75 million can be found stored at sea or in transit by tanker
somewhere from the oil fields to the refineries. This means that
as of this moment, about 550 million "missing barrels" are
unaccounted for "apparently produced but not consumed and not
visible in the inventory statistics."
As John Kemp writes, like most "plugs", the missing barrels are
recorded in the "miscellaneous to balance" line of the IEA's
monthly Oil Market Report as the difference between production,
consumption and reported stock changes. The miscellaneous item
reflects errors in data from OECD countries, errors in the
agency's estimates for supply and demand in non-OECD countries,
and stockpile changes outside the OECD that go unrecorded.
The current IEA data reveals that there is a miscellaneous to
balance item of 0.5 million barrels per day in 2014 and 1.0
million barrels per day in 2015.
This is not new: missing barrels have been a feature of IEA
statistics since the 1970s, and as Reuters adds over time,
errors have occurred in both directions ;), and have ranged up
to 1 million or even 2 million barrels per day.
[/quote]
SNIPPET 2:
[quote]And as Reuters adds, while most of the time, the oil
market ignores the miscellaneous to balance item, but it tends
to become controversial when it becomes very large, either
positive or negative. [size=12pt]Such as now. Furthermore, the
situation is additionally compounded by the massive documented
inventory glut not only in the US but around the globe, and
certainly in China which, as reported yesterday, reported a
record amount of oil in January even as demand is said to have
been declining.
This is what happened the last time there was an implied glut on
par with the current one:
[/size]
The last time the miscellaneous to balance item was this large
and positive (implying an oversupplied market) was in 1997/98
when the issue triggered fierce criticism of the IEA's
statistics. [/I]
Critics accused the IEA of over-estimating supply,
under-estimating demand, contributing to perception of a glut,
depressing prices, and causing unnecessary hardship to the oil
industry. Senator Pete Domenici, chairman of the U.S. Senate
Budget Committee, asked the General Accounting Office to
investigate the IEA's statistics and the question of missing
barrels. In a report published in May 1999, GAO concluded
"missing barrels are not a new condition, and the amount and
direction of missing barrels have fluctuated over time".
[/quote]
Agelbert NOTE: Yeah, right. any time the fossil fuel welfare
queens have issues with low prices, all of a sudden their bought
and paid for sacred IEA is accused of fibbing to hurt the poor
little fossil fuel industry.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/165fs373950.gif
But when the
REVERSE is going on, the fossil fuelers like MKing worship at
the "EIA is Gospel truth" altar. [img
width=80]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg[/img]
[quote]
"At any point in time, the historical oil supply and demand as
well as the stock data reported by IEA could be overstated or
understated [i]by an unknown magnitude." The GAO concluded then
that it was[size=12pt] not possible to "quantify how much of the
missing barrels are due to statistical limitations and how much
are the result of physical oil storage in unreported stocks".
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
Some other comparisons:[/size]
In 1997/98, the market was oversupplied by 2.1 million barrels
per day compared with total demand of around 74 million barrels
per day, according to the IEA.
In 2015, the oil market was also oversupplied by 2.0 million
barrels per day but consumption was running at more than 94
million barrels per day, around 25 percent higher.
To be sure, episodes of massive imbalance usually even out ;),
and following the 1997/98 episode, the missing barrels that
accumulated in unreported non-OECD storage were drawn down in
1999, according to the IEA ("Oil Market Report", IEA, Dec 1999).
In December 1999, the IEA wrote: "The weight of (the) evidence
is that the missing barrels did exist and that they have now
returned to the market."
What helped the 1998 glut was that by the end of 1999, the oil
market was seeing excess demand and prices were rising. But the
rapid recovery depended on very strong economic growth in North
America and Asia (after the East Asian financial crisis in
1997/98).
Another critical factor was the substantial production cuts by
OPEC in conjunction with production restraint from non-OPEC
countries. And it was both heralded and caused by a shift in the
forward price curve from contango to a state of backwardation.
As Reuters concludes, the events of 1999 illustrate the factors
needed to clear an inherited glut of oil (strong demand,
production restraint and a shift in the shape of the forward
price curve).
There are two major problems: this time around demand is
declining - especially in trade-dependent distillate demand -
while debt across the entire world is at record highs, and
makes a fiscal stimulus improbable. Worse, following the
November 2014 OPEC fiasco, the cartel effectively no longer
exists. Furthermore, major oil exporting countries have not so
far agreed to cut production, unlike 1998/99, and in fact Saudi
Arabia has openly rejected the idea. And finally, futures
prices remain resolutely in contango, which is both a symptom of
excess stockpiles and creates a financial incentive to continue
holding them. As Reuters observes, there is no sign of the
market moving into backwardation yet, which would indicate the
supply-demand balance was shifting and would also create a
financial incentive to release oil from storage.
Kemp's conclusion:
Several key OPEC and non-OPEC producers have announced a
provisional production freeze which could speed up the
rebalancing, assuming it is implemented.
But it might not be enough to eliminate the glut quickly;
outright production cuts may be needed to accelerate the
process, depending on what happens to demand and production from
other countries.
This is also why Goldman yesterday released its latest bearish
report on oil, in which it said the "commodity rally is not
sustainable" and worse, "the force of their reversal has created
a new trend in market positioning that could run further.
However, the longer they run, the more destabilizing they become
to the nascent rebalancing they are trying to price."
In other words, the sharp, brief rebound in prices, means that a
long-term sustainable rebound in prices becomes that much less
probable.
The bottom line is that the IEA's calculations are likely
correct, and end markets are merely misreporting due to
commercial interests:
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>"In 1997/98 episode, the IEA concluded most of the missing
barrels went into non-OECD storage and uncounted OECD
inventories . In the current episode, it is also very likely
some of the 550 million barrels unaccounted for in 2014/15 have
gone into unreported storage outside the OECD." [/I] [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img][/quote]
HTML http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-09/curious-case-550-million-missing-barrels-crude-oil
HTML http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-09/curious-case-550-million-missing-barrels-crude-oil
[move][font=courier][I]"Hitting peak oil will come faster than
any of us think. But don't blame dwindling supply — it's all
about disappearing demand" Amory Lovins[/font][/move]
#Post#: 5140--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: May 23, 2016, 9:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Exxon Developed Low Emissions Technology, Lobbied
Against It [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img][/center]
The precursors of ExxonMobil have been patenting technologies
for electric cars and low emissions vehicles since as early as
1963 while fighting against government funding for the same
research.
Newly discovered records show that the oil giants like Esso had
as many as 18 patents, including a process to produce
electricity in a fuel cell and engine technology to reduce
emissions and increase fuel efficiency.
At the same time, the main oil lobby, the American Petroleum
Institute, opposed government funding, saying they took
“exception to the basic assumption” ;)
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>that clean air is possible only through an alternative to
oil-burning vehicles.
Alan Jeffers, an Exxon spokesman, refused to comment on the
documents. (Guardian, Gizmodo, MSNBC)
HTML https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/20/oil-company-records-exxon-co2-emission-reduction-patents
[center]
[img
width=640]
HTML http://quotes.lifehack.org/media/quotes/quote-John-D.-Rockefeller-competition-is-a-sin-42310.png[/img][/center]
#Post#: 5146--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: May 24, 2016, 6:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Big Oil Could Have Put A Dent In CO2 Emissions In 1970s - But
Did Nothing
According to new documents from the Center for International
Environmental Law, the industry chose to prioritize costs over
the planet.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif
The new documents show oil companies chose to invest in climate
denying instead of on technologies to reduce emissions.
Between the 1950s and 1970s, the industry also financed studies
into how petroleum products could be used to control the
climate. [img
width=50]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img]
The research included burning oil to clear areas of fog and
smog, and constructing massive "artificial heat mountains" out
of asphalt to increase rainfall.
[center]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/p8.gif
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs2277341.gif[/center]
As early as the 1980s, oil companies were beginning to invest in
taller oil rigs that could withstand rising sea levels.
Tom Sanzillo, finance director at the Cleveland-based Institute
for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, told Vice there is
a clear potential, perhaps even likelihood, that these documents
will result in litigation against oil companies.
Sanzillo said, "This looks like it's pretty serious, and it just
seems to get worse."
-Thom
HTML http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2016/05/big-oil-could-have-put-dent-co2-emissions-1970s-%E2%80%94-did-nothing
#Post#: 5152--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: May 25, 2016, 5:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/lightbox_image/public/images/article/2016/05/coal-financing.png?itok=mg3zd4fD[/img][/center]
[center]
Germany urged to end coal financing / 'Save the Energiewende'
protests[/center]
Reuters
[center]Campaigners urge Germany to stop financing coal projects
abroad[/center]
Environmental groups urged G7 nations led by Japan and Germany
to stop financing coal projects abroad, reports Alister Doyle
for Reuters.
The study, released before the G7 summit in Japan this week by
groups including the U.S. Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC), WWF and Oil Change International, said Germany provided
nine billion euros between 2007 and 2015, second behind Japan
with 22 billion.
Read the Reuters article in English here.
HTML http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g7-coal-idUSKCN0YF1PD
[center]SWEPT UNDER THE RUG: How G7 Nations Conceal Public
Financing for Coal Around the World
HTML https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/swept-under-rug-coal-financing-report.pdf[/center]
[font=times new roman]pv magazine[/font]
[center]“Moment of warning: five minutes to midnight”[/center]
Associations for renewable energies have joined forces with the
Industrial Union of Metalworkers (IG Metall) to organise a
“moment of warning” as part of the campaign “Save the
Energiewende”, reports pv magazine.
Protesters wanted to gather today in numerous locations across
Germany to demonstrate against current government plans to slow
down renewables development.
The organisers say that the development has advanced too much
“to be stopped without collateral damage” and call for a “solid
regulatory framework for a renewable energy system”
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif,
writes
pv magazine.
Find more information in CLEW's factsheets EEG reform 2016 –
switching to auctions for renewables
HTML https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/eeg-reform-2016-switching-auctions-renewables<br
/> and Defining features of the Renewable Energy Act.
HTML https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/defining-features-renewable-energy-act-eeg
HTML https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-urged-end-coal-financing-save-energiewende-protests
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page