By Julián Salazar Velásquez
Ed. note: Geologist and petroleum engineer Julián Salazar Velásquez, with nearly a half-century in the Mexican and Venezuelan oil industries, is a leading educator and proponent of free market energy. In addition to numerous articles, his book Gerencia Integrada de Campos de Hidrocarburos (2020) is a primer on the oil industry value chain. His four-part summary (see Part I, Part II, and Part III) ends today.
“I have two options: to remain silent in the last years of my life and witness the destruction of the world economy, as just happened in Venezuela. Or alert many to the threat to blessed living to avoid a repeat of destruction. In clear conscience, I opt for the second!”
The role that fossil fuels have played in the progress of humanity in four revolutions is undeniable:
- Mechanization with steam engines powered by coal;
- Massification of electricity, generated first by coal and later by falling water, oil, and natural gas
- Computing
- Digitization and artificial intelligence
The mineral energy story can incorporate another of the highly important indicators in the quality of life, such as agricultural and livestock development and food production. (Figures 12 and 13)
Agricultural development has the same development as the other indicators seen previously, where global progress is reflected in the leading role of fossil fuels from coal and oil at the beginning and subsequent expansion of the Industrial Revolution.
In this case, the use of land for cultivation and grazing, which directly affects the food supply, has also grown exponentially since 1850, with values below one billion hectares prior to that date growing to five billion today. Consider that fossil fuels move the agricultural machinery represented by tractors, irrigation equipment, harvesters and food transport–and consider the petrochemical products derived from oil and gas such as fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides and fungicides used in agriculture that have made possible agricultural development supplying food to a growing world population, now at eight billion.
Thanks to this, the fateful predictions of famine occurring in the world, predictionsin 1972 and 1976 by the Club of Rome and Stanford University respectively, were not fulfilled. Quite the opposite, the public health problem is now the prevalence of obesity caused by overeating and other issues.
Many readers might ask: Do those fuels such as coal, oil and gas not produce environmental pollution or side effects in everyday life?
Of course, yes! All human and industrial activity produces effects on the environment, and environmental-protection laws and regulations govern solid, liquid and gaseous /waste in all countries. But this is not why campaigns are proposing to ban everything that impacts the environment, even when the benefits of that which is being banned are huge compared to the tradeoffs.
It is inadmissible to prohibit the exploration and exploitation of oil and gas (and the use of their fuels and products) because of environmental pollution, when it can be minimized through the use of technologies and by compliance with the procedures established by law. Promoting and imposing “anti-oil and gas” campaigns based on hypothetical negative effects of CO2 emissions is the problem, the misdirection, that needs to be redirected.
As I mentioned in my most recent article on this topic, published on my networks and in Petroleum Magazine: Energy Transition or Transgression?:
…when analyzing the disclosure of the causes and actions to be taken to counteract the climate phenomenon, it is evident that the coverage in the vast majority of the media, social and technical networks, is inclined towards the first line of thought, that is to say, towards the origin generated by the emission of CO2 and CH4 gases and actions aimed at minimizing or eliminating the use of fossil fuels in the medium term and promoting the “energy transition”. Taking the foregoing into consideration, I responsibly affirm that “if we start from a diagnosis without proven scientific basis, the actions dictated by international politics, such as the reduction or prohibition of the use of fuels derived from hydrocarbons, are incorrect and without any effect in the climatic phenomenon; therefore, its consequences will rather have a very strong negative impact on the global economy.
Conclusion
At this stage of my life, fulfilling my mission of disseminating knowledge, experiences, and convictions, it is my inescapable duty, as a professional in the upstream oil industry, to denounce the “demonization” campaign against fossil fuels despite their incalculable contribution to human welfare. Mineral energies, the fossil fuels, the carbon-based energies—abundant, affordable, storable, and reliable—are essential to world progress.
I have been an eyewitness, not because I read or saw it on television or was told about it, but because I have experienced the destruction of Venezuela and its oil industry by promoting and implementing unviable political and economic models. What has happened in my country is akin to what is now being promoted at a global level. Abandoning freedom and devastating a utilitarian industry on false premises is like driving a car with both the accelerator and brake in full simultaneous use.
I have two options: to remain silent in the last years of my life and witness destruction of the world economy just as has happened in Venezuela. Or alert many to the threat to blessed living to avoid a repeat of destruction. In clear conscience, I opt for the second!
-THE END-
REFERENCES:
Berry, Ed. The story behind climate alarmism.PARA CONOCER LA HISTORIA DE LA POLÍTICA Y LA IPPC.
Betancourt, Eduardo (2022) Conferencia: Traspasando las fronteras: Como hacer oír la voz del Sector de Energía en Venezuela y el mundo.https://meet.goto.com/946146245
Calderón Berti, Humberto (2022) Conferencia: El papel de los petroleros en la Reconstrucción de Venezuela. https://youtu.be/OSjlQ309jBg
Capages Jr. Phd, Martin (2019). Why the green new deal is a bad deal for America. https://www.amazon.com/WHY-GREEN-NEW-DEAL-AMERICA-ebook/dp/B07NHFS3ZY
Epstein, Alex. (2022). Fossil Future.Why Global Human Flourishing Requieres More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas – Not Less.
Ferreira, Eduardo (2007). Ecología, mitos y fraudes. Fundación Argentina de Ecología Científica. http://www.mitosyfraudes.org
Happer, William. (2021) Conference. How to Think About Climate Change.
Huber, Rudolf (2021). The Petroleum Age has Just Begun! https://www.methanist.com/margin_notes/the-petroleum-age-has-just-begun/
Lindzen, Richard. Emeritus professor at MIT. Video corto (5 minutos) The cry of global warming. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c&t=23s
Mata, Tomas (2021). Conferencia: La transición energética. Plataforma para la nueva gran expansión de Venezuela. Conferencia en VAPA.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me2HbhmT5Uc&t=3383s
Mata, Tomás (2022). Conferencia: Claves para Encender el Aparato Productivo. https://youtu.be/8_Ga1n4aWiM
Miralles-Wilhelm, Fernando (2022). Conferencia: Cambio Climático: la Realidad, lo Inevitable y Futuros Posibles. https://youtu.be/z9y8SWQ3FFQ
Poyet, Patrice (2021). The Rational Climate e-Book. Cooler is riskier. https://patricepoyet.org/
Rivero-Olmos, Silvia et al. (2011).Cambio Climático Global a través del tiempo geológico. Universidad Simón Bolívar (Venezuela) Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Rojas, Herman (2022) Conferencia: Consideraciones sobre los gases de efecto invernadero en la industria petrolera. https://youtu.be/TtFVqJ-INJ0
Salazar Velásquez, Julián. (2020). Gerencia Integrada de Campos de Hidrocarburos. ¿Cómo descubrir y desarrollar exitosamente campos de petróleo y gas?
http://bit.ly/GerenciaIntegradadeCamposdeHidrocarburos
Salazar Velásquez, Julián. (2021) Conferencia: Las dos grandes amenazas actuales a la industria petrolera: el antifracking y el calentamiento global. https://youtu.be/sVecMhRbnqU
Siegel, David (2021). Ninety Nine Percent of all Conversations about Climate are Wrong. How I changed my mind about climate change. https://medium.com/science-and-philosophy/ninety-nine-percent-of-all-conversations-about-climate-are-wrong-fa56d3f4f828
Siegel, David. https://pullnews.medium.com/climate-curious-513ccfeb8a7f
Stein, Mark (2015). A disgrace to the profession. The world´s scientists -in their own words- on Michael E. Mann, his hockey stick, and their damage to science. Vol. 1.
Vera Díaz, Julio Cesar (2018). Yacimientos de roca generadora una oportunidad de desarrollo sostenible para todos los colombianos. I Cumbre del petróleo y gas. Asociación colombiana de Ingenieros de Petróleo (ACIPET)
Wrightstone, Gregory (2020). Inconvenient Facts. The science that Al Gore doesn´t want you to know. https://inconvenientfacts.xyz/
21st Century Science and Technology. http://21sci-tech.com/
What a well-stated series of articles! In this one, the author quotes himself to say, “… I responsibly affirm that “if we start from a diagnosis without proven scientific basis, the actions dictated by international politics, such as the reduction or prohibition of the use of fuels derived from hydrocarbons, are incorrect and without any effect in the climatic phenomenon; therefore, its consequences will rather have a very strong negative impact on the global economy.””
Let’s apply the concept we use to qualify prescription pharmaceuticals to be introduced to the market – they must be proven by strictly controlled clinical studies and reports to be safe and effective. And any side effects and drug interactions must be evaluated.
The diagnosis (itself unsound, in my sense of it) that emissions of CO2 are causing harm has led to the promotion of non-emitting wind and solar sources of electricity. But there is no evidence of effectiveness in mitigating climate-related losses! And the introduction of these intermittent sources has had terrible side effects on grid systems already!
Enough! Pull the failed “medicine” from the market to stop the side effects which are worse than the condition claimed to require treatment.
And yes, I spent 28 years in the prescription pharmaceutical industry, so I see the parallels here quite clearly.
That was before 2020.
28 years in the prescription pharmaceutical industry! Where have you been the last couple of years to believe that those standards still apply?
“Let’s apply the concept we use to qualify prescription pharmaceuticals to be introduced to the market – they must be proven by strictly controlled clinical studies and reports to be safe and effective. And any side effects and drug interactions must be evaluated.:
That is NOT even close to the whole truth. I wrote a feature article on the drug industry for my former newsletter ECONOMIC LOGIC many years ago, which was fact checked by two drug industry insiders. This is what I can remember:
A new drug ONLY has to pass two random tests.
Those tests will involve the healthiest and youngest acceptable subjects the drug company can recruit
The test subjects will not replicate the older, sicker people who will take the drugs after they are approved, and will be less able to tolerate such large doses
The new drugs only have to be effective in two random trials — they are never compared with existing generic or non-generic drugs.
A pain killer that is not as good as aspirin, for example, and has more adverse side effects than aspirin, with unknown long term adverse side effects, can be approved by the FDA and sold at absurdly high prices.
New drugs are extensively tested for toxicity, efficacy and dose. The first stage of the preclinical trial is to use computers, and cell samples are used to find chemicals that seem to work on the target.
Drug interactions are NOT thoroughly evaluated. There are over 20,000 US prescription drug products approved for marketing. How could 20,000 possible interactions be tested? That would take a lifetime.
Drug companies spend more money on marketing relative than on research and development. An analysis from AHIP shows that in most cases, more of the dollars spent by drug manufacturers go toward selling and marketing costs than toward research and development (R&D) for new treatments, cures, or expanded indications and uses of existing drugs
26 Incredible US Pharmaceutical Statistics [2023]: Facts, Data, Trends And More – Zippia
Covid vaccine avoided almost all the standards for testing, and have had the worst adverse side effects of any vaccine in history.
I would love to hear you claim Covid vaccines are “safe and effective”, when they are the least safe vaccines in history, and can not be proven to have saved any lives, using all-cause mortality statistics and excess death estimates. … Even if crazy Trump claims tries to BS us by claiming “his” vaccines saved 100 million lives.
RG
This is all off topic:
IIRC a new drug candidate undergoes Phase I & II trials for dosing & safety
using healthy paid volunteers, then Phase III trials using actual patients.
The third phase rarely is against a placebo unless there are no accepted treatments. Usually they run the new drug against the most commonly used therapy to see if it’s better (superiority trial) or equivalent (non-inferiority trial).
And yes, if approved, they try to sell it for what ever the market will bear.
Finally, IMO, we should fire all the top management at the FDA for their incompetent handling of Covid, AND completely sunder their cozy relationships with Big Pharma.
I see I have triggered some responses! Fine.
Briefly, two points:
“Emergency Use Authorization” is how the 2020 “vaccines” were introduced without the normal extended studies.No, the laws and the regulations have not changed. It’s true that drug interactions with all other marketed medicines cannot be fully studied in advance, but any adverse findings after introduction have to be reported.Let’s not miss the opportunity here to get the obvious point – If you see problems with adverse outcomes from recent pharmaceutical products, then that makes my case even stronger:
Stop pushing the “medicine” of net zero, decarbonization, wind+solar+battery storage+EV’s. It is causing far more harm than any good it could possibly bring about.
Minor nit-pick in regards to “Massification of electricity, generated first by coal and later by falling water, oil, and natural gas”
Edison’s Pearl Street plant was built in 1882 and hydroelectric plants were becoming common about 1890. The problem with intermittent availability of hydro-electric power was well known by 1920 with fossil fuel plants being built specifically to provide power during periods of low water supply.
More nit-picky. Edison started out with DC instead of AC. Because transformers need AC, power transmission was limited to a short distance. Originally it was envisioned that power plants would need to be placed very closely to provide adequate voltage. After the battle of the currents and AC won out, Edison converted to AC. AC allowed New York to use power provide by Niagara Falls and the modern power grid was launched.
The history is a bit more complicated than that. Edison systems, i.e. +/-120VDC were common in the downtowns of large cities up to about WW2, with the last vestiges disappearing about 1970. The original systems used local prime-movers (mostly steam engines) but by the late 1890’s it was common to AC/DC substations instead of generating plants for the DC supply. These substations usually had storage batteries to provide power during outages on the AC supply.
The first AC hydro plant in the US was the single phase Ames plant near Telluride, built in 1891. The original Niagara Falls plant was a 2 phase 25Hz installation built in 1892 and the first three phase hydro plant was Mill Creek #1 near San Bernadino built in 1893.
G’Day Erik,
“The history is a bit more complicated …”
You sure got that right. Even the concept of electricity and how it behaved was not widely known. Bodie, California (now a ghost mining town) was a case in point. Power was generated at the “Dynamo Pond”, on the west side of modern Hwy 395, and sent straight cross-country to Bodie. Not a bend or turn in the line. The thinking – the electricity might not go around corners.
Common knowledge about electricity at that time was probably on a par with common knowledge about global warming today.
These substations usually had storage batteries to provide power during outages on the AC supply.
So that’s what they made those batteries for. In the late 60s I went to a telephone exchange where they had a battery that measures about 2 feet by 2 feet and almost 5 feet hight. It was lead acid and was 2 volts. I knew they used it in the telephone exchange where with others it would provide 48 hours of backup power. I could see them using them in submarines where they might provide a couple of days worth of power if they limited the drain. Sill the market for those applications were small but I can see the power companies needing a lot of them. I haven’t been able to find them on the internet but maybe its if you need them, you already know where to find them.
Something long forgotten. Tar from seepage was harvested and combined with rope. This was used to caulk ships keeping them water tight. That enable trade and exploration before the switch to metals hulls. In addition, oil was used to replace whale oil for lighting allowing factories to cheaply operate after dark. This helped to advance the industrial age.
Sn. Velasquez, please can you add clickable links to parts 1, 2 & 3 so that when part 4 is forwarded or emailed the recipients can read the whole series without having to look for them.
Just enter “Velasquez” into the search engine at the top of the page and they all come up.
And the obesity caused by overeating caused by both a sucrose fueled diet as well as sedentary lifestyle caused by the Internet caused by reliable, cheap, abundant energy.
Yes, the planet IS self regulating!
A sedentary lifestyle does not automatically make a person overweight
Eating too much sugar does not automatically make a person overweight
Eating more calories than you burn with activity makes you gain weight
It’s that simple
Yu can eat lots of sugar, and be sedentary, and slim
I have MANY examples — here are two:
My Mother in Law — lived to 94, nursing home for last two years
My Father — lived to 98, never needed a nursing home, lived on his own for 98 years
A contrary example:
A female strict vegetarian friend is in a men’s bicycle club — goes on 50+ mile bike rides on weekends in good weather. She is muscular for a woman … and overweight too.
Very important talk.
Salute!
Outstanding commentary. And the greenies and Gorebull acolytes wish us to revert to what humans endured and survived 200 years ago, or further back.
I must use Clancy’s “Rainbow Six” solution.
Require all the folks demanding the cessation of using fossil fuels to actually live and work and survive without using them for cooking, heating and then….then…..oh! generating electricity for all those new heat pumps that do not work worth a hoot when it is below 40 degrees F or so. So no electricity from using fossil fuels, not just electricity production, but all the infra structure required to get those volts and amps to your subsidized heat pumps. GASP!
Somehow I do not think they are thinking about the results of what they are absolutely sure of will save the planet getting a few degrees warmer, and god forgive if it gets just a tiny bit colder.
For millenia, humans have adapted, moved, inovatated invented and prospered.. I, for one, am not gonna roll over and die.
Gums sends…
Didn’t you catch the latest news. A Gore revealed that the oceans are now boiling. No more sea food but maybe that boiling water can be used to generate electricity, saving the now dead whales from wind turbines.
This paper should be sent to every politician who even thinks of taking their country down the zero carbon rabbit hole .
I will just point out that I have been farming for 65 years and I have seen a vast change from when I left school and started working on a farm in December 1958.
I cannot recall nitrogenous being used at that time but a lot of guano had been imported into New Zealand as fertilizer earlier .
Nitrogenous fertilizer manufactured using natural gas now feeds 4 billion people through out the world .
Where would this food come from if nitrogenous fertilizer gets banned ?
Greenpeace is trying to persuade people that the use of nitrogenous fertilizer will cause global warming because of emissions of nitrous oxide N2O.
We had a 25 horse power Fordson tractor on steel wheels to do all the ground work and a little later on we had a 28 horse power Ferguson to mow hay and silage and many other tasks .
Tractors and farm machinery has now become very large and can cover vast ares in a day
compared to the late 1950s .
Tractors and combine harvesters ,planters and sprayers have all become much larger and without them crops would not be able to be grown economically without many more staff and far more small scale equipment .
The world can be fed with present knowledge but if stupid politicians starting at the UN and then progressing to the major countries start interfering many people will starve .
This is what I mean by interfering . Our now EX Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on being elected to power banned all further oil and gas exploration off New Zealands coasts.
A second urea plant could have been built (if Jacinda had not interfered) to fully meet our needs and for export as urea 46% nitrogen is absolutely essential( to feed the world .
We have a urea plant in Taranaki but it does not produce enough for the countries needs .
18 months ago Urea was costing farmers around $400 per tonne and with drastic world shortages the price exceeded $1400 per tonne but has now back to $1230 .
New Zealand feeds 40 million people from a country of 5 million but there will be less food grown because of the cost of urea.