H/T to Dr. Willie Soon for sending me something to ridicule this morning.
This is just fracking mental…
The Oil Giants Might Finally Pay for Pulling the Biggest Hoax of All
New York State is alleging ExxonMobil knew the risks of climate change and defrauded its investors by misrepresenting them.
BY CHARLES P. PIERCE
AUG 7, 2019[… Exxon Knew blather snipped…]
Exxon engaged in “a longstanding fraudulent scheme” to deceive investors by providing false and misleading assurances that it was effectively managing the economic risks posed by increasingly stringent policies and regulations it anticipated being adopted to address climate change, the lawsuit states. “Instead of managing those risks in the manner it represented to investors, Exxon employed internal practices that were inconsistent with its representations, were undisclosed to investors, and exposed the company to greater risk from climate change regulation than investors were led to believe,” the lawsuit said.
[…Exxon Knew blather snipped…]
Esquire
The article is basically one ignorant person (Charles P. Pierce) quoting a bunch of other ignorant people (Inside Climate News).
These “little Jiminy Cricket pest bastards” have already lost the “Exxon Knew” battle in their campaign of eco-terrorist lawfare against the oil & gas industry because… Everything “Exxon and other energy companies knew as long ago as 30 years” came from college-level textbooks, peer-reviewed scientific publications and government reports. All of the supposedly secret oil industry reports were either copies of publicly available information or summaries thereof.
The #ExxonKnew Epic Fail, Part One
Everything oil companies allegedly knew came from publicly available government and/or academic sources
One of the allegedly most damning documents was the 1968 Robinson Report for the American Petroleum Institute (API).
In 1968, scientists with the Stanford Research Institute reported to the American Petroleum Institute about their research on atmospheric pollutants of interest to the industry. Summarizing the available science, the scientists saved their starkest warnings for carbon dioxide (CO2). They cautioned that rising levels of CO2 would likely result in rising global temperatures and warned that, if temperatures increased significantly, the result could be melting ice caps, rising sea levels, warming oceans, and serious environmental damage on a global scale.
1968 “THE ROBINSON REPORT”
A page reproduced from this damning report referenced Möller (1963) as the source of a 1-7 °F rise in temperature due to a 25% rise in atmospheric CO2…
Unless Exxon owned the American Geophysical Union back then, Möller (1963) was not a secret document…
On the influence of changes in the CO2 concentration in air on the radiation balance of the Earth’s surface and on the climate
F. MöllerAbstract
Journal of Geophysical Research
The numerical value of a temperature change under the influence of a CO2 change as calculated by Plass is valid only for a dry atmosphere. Overlapping of the absorption bands of CO2 and H2O in the range around 15 μ essentially diminishes the temperature changes. New calculations give ΔT = + 1.5° when the CO2 content increases from 300 to 600 ppm. Cloudiness diminishes the radiation effects but not the temperature changes because under cloudy skies larger temperature changes are needed in order to compensate for an equal change in the downward long-wave radiation. The increase in the water vapor content of the atmosphere with rising temperature causes a self-amplification effect which results in almost arbitrary temperature changes, e.g. for constant relative humidity ΔT = +10° in the above mentioned case. It is shown, however, that the changed radiation conditions are not necessarily compensated for by a temperature change. The effect of an increase in CO2 from 300 to 330 ppm can be compensated for completely by a change in the water vapor content of 3 per cent or by a change in the cloudiness of 1 per cent of its value without the occurrence of temperature changes at all. Thus the theory that climatic variations are effected by variations in the CO2 content becomes very questionable.
From the full paper…
In this case, we must distinguish between the assumptions that the water vapor content (in cm l.e.) remains unchanged in spite of heating (cooling) of the atmosphere and that it increases (decreases). Constant absolute humidity means that the relative humidity (f) decreases from 75 to 70.34 per cent with a 1° or lowered by 4.66 per cent per deg. According to the above-mentioned calculations, an increase in CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm gives us a temperature change ΔT = +1.5° for Δf = -4.66 per cent per deg, and a temperature change ΔT = +9.6° for Δf = 0.
[…]
We recognize that for Δf = 0.8 per cent per deg the temperature change becomes infinite. Very small variations effect a reversal of sign or huge amplifications.
It is not too difficult to infer from these numbers that the variation in the radiation budget from a changed CO2 concentration can be compensated for completely without any variation in the surface temperature when the cloudiness is increased by +0.006 or the water vapor content is decreased by -0.07 cm l.e.
[…]
These are variations in the cloudiness by 1 per cent of its value or in the water vapor content by 3 per cent of its value. No meteorologist or climatologist would dare to determine the mean cloudiness or mean water content of the atmosphere with such accuracy; much less can a change of this order of magnitude be proved or its existence denied. Because of these values the entire theory of climatic changes by CO2 variations is becoming questionable.
Möller (1963)
So, as far back as 1963, Exxon knew exactly what we know today:
“The entire theory of climatic changes by CO2 variations is questionable.“
The infamous 1978 Black presentation was just a survey of government and academic publications on the so-called greenhouse effect.
Here’s what Exxon knew in 1978…
Black’s allegedly proprietary climate model was just another cartoon based on publicly available literature.
I added HadCRUT4 to highlight how Hansen-ian it was in its wrongness.
This allegedly proprietary Exxon climate model is a cartoon derived from a 1979 National Research Council publication…
I plotted HadCRUT4 and MLO CO2 on it at the same scale… The models were wrong back then and are not much better now.
The #ExxonKnew Epic Fail, Part Deux
Oil companies are concealing the future malfeasance of future Democrat and possibly RINO politicians
The current phase of their campaign of ecoterroristic lawfare against the oil & gas industry centers on the assertion that ExxonMobil deceived investors by failing to predict that future government malfeasance will put them out of business. They are literally suing ExxonMobil for failing to warn investors about the dangers of voting for any of the passengers in the 2020 Democrat presidential candidates clown car.
I would say that it couldn’t get any more moronic than that… But it could. The Esquire “article” featured this photo and caption…
The #ExxonKnew Epic Fail, Part Trois
“Oil companies built their rigs to account for sea-level rise”
It’s fairly obvious that Charles P. Pierce…
- Doesn’t know what a “rig” is.
- Doesn’t know who builds them.
- Doesn’t know that sea level rise is irrelevant to an offshore drilling rig.
- Doesn’t know that it’s also irrelevant to production platforms – What he calls “rigs.”
- Doesn’t know the insignificance of sea level rise relative to air gap.
- Doesn’t know the insignificance or sea level rise relative to waves.
Who is Charles P. Pierce and how did he get so clueless?
Charles Patrick Pierce[1] (born December 28, 1953) is an American sportswriter, political blogger, liberal pundit[2] author, and game show panelist.[3]
Wikipedia
The rest of this post will be a technical discussion of offshore drilling rigs, production platforms and how climate change has no affect on them. Most of it is from previous posts and comments of mine.
Why Sea Level Rise Doesn’t Affect Drilling Rigs
Exxon also built oil rigs in the North Sea to withstand projected climate impacts like sea level rise and rising temperatures.
Think Progress
Now, I am probably going out on a limb to assume that these dimwits actually mean “oil rigs” when they say “oil rigs”… However, ExxonMobil doesn’t build oil rigs. They contract rigs from drilling contractors who paid other companies to build them. Offshore drilling rigs are designed to survive the weather… Which can get kind of rough at sea.
The oil rigs that drilled wells in the North Sea were capable of drilling all over the world. Half the rigs that were in the Gulf of Mexico 10 years ago have moved overseas, mostly to the Middle East and Africa. The rigs are capable of working year-round. Offshore oil rigs don’t notice 0.0035 °C per year of rising temperatures and 3 mm per year of sea level rise. However, they do notice hurricanes, which occasionally sink them.
Oil rigs are designed to operate in specific water depth ranges.
“Within offshore rigs there are two main categories; jackups and floaters”
The ENSCO 56 is a jackup rig:
When the legs aren’t deployed, the jackup floats. It is towed to the drilling location by tugboats. The legs are lowered to the seafloor and the rig is literally jacked up to a sufficient height to maintain the necessary air gap above the sea surface. The biggest jackups can work in water depths up to about 400-500′ and drill to depths of about 30,000′. Sea level rise has no effect on jackup rigs. They rarely sit in one place for more than a few months.
The first jackup rig was built in 1954. At 3 mm/yr, sea level may have risen 192 mm since 1954. That’s 7.6 inches… 0.6 feet. The reference elevation for wells is generally the Kelly bushing (KB). The KB depth is rounded to the nearest foot. Assuming the first jackup rig stayed on location since 1954 and had a KB elevation of 75′ above sea level, the current KB would be 74.4′ above sea level. This is an insignificant difference. Very few structure maps have contour intervals smaller than 10′, most have 50′ to 100′ contour intervals. 0.6′ is less than the resolution of most well logs. I’ve been working the Gulf of Mexico since 1988; climate change has not forced us to revise the KB’s of any well ever drilled in the Gulf of Mexico.
Floaters are even less affected by sea level change. They float on the surface when drilling. They are either moored to the seafloor with anchors or dynamically positioned (DP) with thruster motors. DSS-38 is a DP rig…
Floaters can operate in water depths from above 500′ to more than 10,000′ and can drill to depths greater than 30,000′. They would be totally unaffected by sea level rise of even several meters and they rarely sit in one place for more than several months.
Despite the raging catastrophic rise in sea level since Al Gore invented the Internet and global warming, jackup, semi-submersible and drill ship rigs are still drilling in the same places they were 30 years ago. Since they are capable of operating in winter, spring, summer and fall, from the North Sea to West Africa to the Middle East to Southeast Asia to the Gulf of Mexico, they did not have to be specially designed to fend off climate change.
The stupidly written caption is probably referring to the elevation of fixed offshore production platforms. This is totally unrelated to sea level rise; it’s entirely due to seafloor subsidence caused by the extraction of hydrocarbons and lessons learned from the 2005 hurricane season. It’s pretty well limited to very large offshore fields where the platforms have been in place for decades.
What clueless journalists usually mean when they write “oil rigs”
This idiotic pasage is from an actual “little Jiminy Cricket pest bastard” lawsuit:
In contrast to their public-facing efforts challenging the validity of the scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change, Defendants’ acts and omissions evidence their internal acknowledgement of the reality of climate change and its likely consequences. These actions include, but are not limited to, making multi-billion-dollar infrastructure investments for their own operations that acknowledge the reality of coming anthropogenic climate-related change. These investments included (among others), raising offshore oil platforms to protect against sea level rise; reinforcing offshore oil platforms to withstand increased wave strength and storm severity; and developing and patenting designs for equipment intended to extract crude oil and/or natural gas in areas previously unreachable because of the presence of polar ice sheets.
Crab Fishermen vs Civilization
No! No! No! No offshore production platform has ever been raised “to protect against sea level rise”…
Existing platforms raised to increase storm clearance
02/01/2007
A Devon Energy-operated platform with 44 people on board in the Eugene Island 330 field in the Gulf of Mexico was raised 4.25 m (14 ft) by 32 synchronously controlled hydraulic cylinders. The eight-leg platform, Eugene Island 330C, in 76 m (250 ft) of water originally was installed in the early 1970s. In 2005, Hurricane Rita passed through the field causing significant damage to EI 330C and claimed connecting platform EI 330S. In order to prevent repeated damage from future storms, EI 330C and neighboring platform EI 330B, which had also suffered significant damage from the hurricane, Devon teamed with Versabar to raise both platforms.Due to the size of the hurricanes during the 2005 season and resulting uncertainty in future requalification metocean criteria, Devon Energy decided to have the platforms qualified to meet API RP 2A, Section 17, A-I criteria, even though the platforms were classified as A-2. Analysis showed that by raising the decks 4.25 m (14 ft), the effects of wave-in-deck loading would be removed and a comfortable air gap established. Analysis also showed that the additional leg movements attributable to increased platform leg length would not affect the structural integrity of the platform. The deck-raising was sanctioned by Devon and partners in May 2006, with raising operations for the two decks completed by November.
[…]
Offshore
Regarding the nonsense about sea level rise, the EI 330 air gap restoration was not to cope with a few inches of sea level rise. It was due to seafloor subsidence and damage inflicted by a couple of really bad hurricanes in 2005.
Those two hurricanes did almost as much damage to Gulf of Mexico oil production as the Obama maladministration did.
Despite some bad hurricanes and an even worse Obama, the Gulf is still kicking @$$, second only to the Permian Basin
Texas and the Federal Offshore Gulf of Mexico (GOM), the two largest crude oil production areas in the United States, both reached record levels of production in April at 4.97 million b/d and 1.98 million b/d, respectively. Oklahoma also reached a record production level of 617,000 b/d.
[…]
Despite pipeline capacity constraints, the Permian region’s month-over-month growth averaged nearly 100,000 b/d for almost all of 2018. Industry efficiencies in pipeline utilization and increased trucking and rail transport in the region have allowed crude oil production to continue to grow. In the latest Short-Term Energy Outlook, EIA forecasts that Permian production will average 4.4 million b/d in 2019, a 920,000 b/d increase from its 2018 average.
EIA
It’s the waves, not sea level rise
Offshore production platforms and drilling rigs are designed to operate in the oceans. Oceans have these things called “waves.” Waves are a lot bigger than sea level rise. And the industry has steadily improved the survivability of platforms over the past 50 years. Changing-Practice-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-Design-and-Operating-Criteria (1)
Fixed platforms are designed to have a minimum air gap above the crest of 100-yr waves. The estimated 100-yr waves and air gaps are very large relative to sea level rise.
Simply put… 1-2 ft. of sea level rise per century is irrelevant to a platform designed to last less than 50 years, deal with 10 ft. of seafloor subsidence and handle 75 ft. waves…
Deck height
Deck height is the vertical distance from the still water surface to the underside of the lowest deck structural element on the platform. It is important to construct oil platform decks high enough above the water’s surface to avoid waves washing over the top, which could overload the platform and destroy it. While deck heights can be too low for several reasons, the two most common are:Age — Older platform decks were set low because of available construction equipment at the time and because of a lack of knowledge of wave heights in the Gulf of Mexico and;
Subsidence — Some areas of the Gulf of Mexico floor have experience several feet of subsidence, or settling, related to production.
Usually, significant settling is found in older platforms because it can take 20 years to obtain 8 to 12 feet of subsidence. For example a platform installed in 250 feet of water 35 years ago may have been installed with a deck height of 45 feet. But after 20 years of production from multiple wells, there may be 10 feet of subsidence that reduces deck height to, say, 35 feet — leaving the platform more vulnerable to wave-in-deck loads never considered in the original design.
Whereas it would take a 75-foot wave height to reach the original deck when it was 45 feet above the still water surface, it would only require a 58-foot wave to reach the same point on the deck with 10 feet of subsidence. The chance of a 75-foot wave occurring at a platform site in the Gulf of Mexico in any given year is about 1 percent while the chance of a 58-foot wave is about 6 percent — placing the subsided platform at a significantly higher risk.
Insurance Journal
Charles P. Pierce earns a Ron White lifetime achievement award…
About the author
I have been a geophysicist/geologist in the oil & gas industry since 1981, a member of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists since 1981 and American Association of Petroleum Geologists since 2004. The vast majority of my career has been spent exploring for oil & gas under the Gulf of Mexico.
References
Gebara JM, Dolan D, Pawsey S, Jeanjean P, Dahl-Stamnes K. “Assessment of Offshore Platforms Under Subsidence—Part I: Approach”. ASME. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 2000;122(4):260-266. doi:10.1115/1.1313530.
Möller, F. (1963). “On the influence of changes in the CO2 concentration in air on the radiation balance of the Earth’s surface and on the climate”. J. Geophys. Res., 68(13), 3877–3886, doi:10.1029/JZ068i013p03877.
National Research Council. 1979. “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment”. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12181.
Further Reading
What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they know it? (Part 1)
What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they know it? (Part Deux, “Same as it ever was.”)
What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they know it? (Part 3, Exxon: The Fork Not Taken
“Smoke & Fumes”… The dumbest attack on ExxonMobil evah’
Even dumber than the dumbest attack on ExxonMobil evah’
What Did Shell Know and When Did They Know It?
NY Attorney General Defies Judge’s Order in Exxon Case
HuffPost: The Dumbest #ExxonKnew Article… EVAH!
Why is this worth reading? Seas are rising at about a foot or less per century. I’m sure we will be out of oil by the time sea levels are an issue.
If you don’t think it’s worth reading, move on to another post.
I think it’s “worth reading” to see how fracking greentarded these lawsuits are.
It was worth writing because I love to ridicule greentards.
One of their greentarded assertions, is that “Oil companies built their rigs to account for sea-level rise.”
Sea level clearly won’t be an issue with offshore oil production.
We’ll never “be out of oil”… We’ll find a better energy source long before we run out.
You really are stupid.
Is that based on anything other than the opinion of a troll?
“But I am sarcastic, obnoxious and enjoy being a smart@$$.”
David, I really wish we could share a few pints and have a gas bag; it sounds like you were cast from the same mould re-used on me 🙂
Thanks for the post, it’s a pity its circulation won’t be as widespread as the bovine excrement you’re quite rightly ridiculing; shame to miss the spectacle of habitually indignant greentard’s becoming so apoplectic that their heads explode when confronted with some inconvenient truth in lieu of their regular diet of echo-chamber approved, ecologically certifiable equino faeces.
Ensco 56 – still fondly remembered for having the best offshore catering I’ve known.
I’ve got the ENSCO 75 working for me right now… By “me” I mean the company I work for. This is the fifth well I’ve drilled with the E75 since last summer… And last well of the contract. We had a 7 well program on the shelf… A rarity these days. When this well is done, I’ll actually miss watching my favorite TV show (Schlumberger’s Interact real time well data).
he is not stupid.
But I am sarcastic, obnoxious and enjoy being a smart@$$.
Well, according to the article,
According to the A Möller (1963) report a predicted rise of 1.1F With low water feedback up to 7F with extensive water feedbacks with a 25% increase in CO2 can now be tested. Back in 1963 ambient CO2 levels were around 320. A 25% increase from there would be 320/4 or 80 ppm. From 1963 until 2014 CO2 increased from 320 ppm to 400 ppm and globally averaged temperature increased by about 0.7C or 1.2F. So if Exxon knew what Möller knew in 1963, then Exxon knew that water feedbacks would be negligible and CO2 increases would be beneficial rather than detrimental
Keep up the good work, David! was in the Air Force from 1956, before they began building the oil platforms, originally called Texas Towers. They were built high above the water then, to be out of the reach of most storms. Some of them failed anyway. It was LONG, LONG before anyone started taklking about ‘climate warming’. In fact, the earliest fears were more about the coming Ice Age! They guy who wrote this mish-mash of BS is just trying to fool as many people as he possibly can, to make himself look smart, intelligent and knowledgeable. It isn’t working.
I think it’s fantastic and will use it whenever ‘greentards’ (lol) say, as if it’s a lay down misere, ‘Exxon’ knew.
David Middleton, thank you for a great article about the mad, mad lawfare (great word!) against these allegedly evil oil companies. As you mention oil rigs and their respective drilling depths, I would like to mention the huge North Sea Condeep platforms, built from the 1970s. The largest of these, Troll A, stands on its concrete “legs” in more than 300 m depth, with a total height of 470 m.
https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condeep-plattform
There’s a great documentary about the Troll platform.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se26Ux9QD44
Troll-A hosted the ‘concert under the sea’, as I recall, billed as the ‘deepest’ concert ever held;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YtCHHpZNxo
(English subtitles available via the subtitles/closed captions button)
Maybe Katie Melua should have waited for a few years – if this concert were held today, they could have added 39mm to their 303m depth record.
Your article was well worth reading, and I found it very informative.
There’s another huge error Charles Pierce has made on his legal arguments; you have successfully demolished all of his arguments related to the actual claim. But he’s forgotten (or never knew) what was common knowledge among the activists and leftist controlled attorney generals who put this plan together some years ago. They knew that suing for “misleading investors” was incredibly weak, and also that due to issues with causality, there was no chance of actually getting a judicial decision that would harm any oil company. That wasn’t the point, that was never the point.
The entire plan was to get 50 states, and hopefully hundreds of cities, to sue Exxon and other large outfits simultaneously, and to engage them in expensive rounds of Discovery 100 times over. The belief was that this would be so expensive that they could never fight them all, and that Exxon (and others) would give in and settle, giving the Enviros and their allies a huge pile of cash which they could use to extend their reach.
This plan has already collapsed completely – and Pierce doesn’t even know it. He’s the Japanese soldier hiding in the jungle in 1970, unaware that the war is over. Only a handful of local governments signed on to the cost of litigation, and a lot dropped out after the first couple of cases went badly and proved to be nothing more than money pits for the plaintiffs.
And then, in the legal world, the Chevron – Donziger case has been huge. It demonstrated how a large corp *can* fight back and destroy would be environmental extortionists. Now, these court fights are just about over – a few linger on, like zombies, but the end is already determined. All that’s left is to police the battlefield and clean up the mess.
and Pierce has no clue about any of that.
I do hope that someone goes full-Chevron on these little Jiminy Cricket pest bastards!
David, for future reference, should any of the little Jiminy Cricket pest bastards attempt more of their lawfare stupidity, see below and forward it to any physicists the oil companies employ.
It’s but one section of a much longer paper utilizing particle physics and quantum mechanics to nullify the CAGW hypothesis at the quantum level… if a process cannot occur at the quantum level, it most certainly cannot occur macroscopically. This destroys the underlying premise of the entire climate charade.
We sarcastic, obnoxious smart@$$es need to stick together, brother. We built the world, and I’ll be damned if we let a bunch of overly-domesticated delusional soyboy pencil-necks tear it down.
———-
Here’s what we need to hit the climate alarmists with when they start bleating that CO2 is going to cause the planet to catastrophically warm.
The basic premise behind CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) is that the CO2 molecule absorbs ~15 µm radiation, becomes vibrationally excited in one of its bending modes, collides with a nitrogen or oxygen molecule, and imparts that vibrational energy to the translational energy of the other molecule via a process known as collisional de-excitation, thereby increasing the temperature of the atmosphere.
But what if they’re only telling the public half the story as means of pushing a narrative to achieve an end they otherwise would be unable to achieve?
The half of the story the public has been told, that CO2 causes warming, is a narrow and intentionally misconstrued truth hiding two much wider lies.
The truth is that CO2 can indeed cause warming via the mechanism described above… up to ~288 K and at low altitude. Above ~288 K and at low altitude, CO2 is a net atmospheric coolant. Above the tropopause, CO2 is a net atmospheric coolant via radiative emission at any temperature.
One wider lie that’s hiding behind that narrow and misconstrued truth is that the world must de-industrialize, get rid of capitalism and change our way of life… the climate change issue has been hijacked by socialists using it as a vehicle to push for a world-wide totalitarian government. They’ve openly admitted this… quotes are in the attached file.
Another wider lie that’s hiding behind that narrow and misconstrued truth is that we must richly fund the climate ‘scientists’ who are pushing the scam, and we must move to so-called ‘green’ power… hundreds of billions of dollars per year are being flushed down the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) toilet per year based upon this lie.
The full story: In an atmosphere sufficiently dense such that collisional energy transfer can significantly occur, all radiative molecules play the part of atmospheric coolants at and above the temperature at which the combined translational mode energy of two colliding molecules exceeds the lowest vibrational mode quantum state energy of the radiative molecule. Below this temperature, they act to warm the atmosphere via the mechanism the climate alarmists claim happens all the time, but if that warming mechanism occurs below the tropopause, the net result is an increase of Convective Available Potential Energy (CAPE), which increases convection, which is a net cooling process.
Particle physics first principles shows that CO2 does not and cannot cause catastrophic warming, and in fact CO2 acts as a net atmospheric coolant at temperatures above ~288 K. This leaves the climate catastrophists with no wiggle room… if a process cannot occur at the quantum level, it most certainly cannot occur macroscopically.
The data below peals the death knell for CAGW. You’re welcome.
———-
In dealing with solely translational mode energy and neglecting vibrational mode and rotational mode energy for the moment, the Equipartition Theorem states that molecules in thermal equilibrium have the same average energy associated with each of three independent degree of freedom, equal to:
3/2kT per molecule, where k = Boltzmann’s Constant
3/2RT per mole, where R = gas constant
Thus the Equipartition Theorem equation:
KE_avg = 3/2kT
serves well in the definition of kinetic energy (which we sense as temperature).
It does not do as well at defining the specific heat of polyatomic gases, simply because it does not take into account the increase of internal molecular energy via vibrational mode and rotational mode excitation. Energy imparted to the molecue via either photon absorption or collisional energetic exchange can excite those vibrational mode or rotational mode quantum states, increasing the total molecular energy E_tot, but not affecting temperature at all. Since we’re only looking at translational mode energy at the moment (and not specific heat); and internal molecular energy is not accounted for in measuring temperature (which is a measure of translational mode energy only), this long-known and well-proven equation fits our purpose.
Our thermometers are an instantaneous average of molecular kinetic energy. If they could respond fast enough to register every single molecule impinging upon the thermometer probe, we’d see temperature wildly jumping up and down, with a distribution equal to the Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function. In other words, at any given measured temperature, some molecules will be moving faster (higher temperature) and some slower (lower temperature), with an equilibrium distribution (Planckian) curve.
The Equipartition Theorem states that in Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium conditions all molecules, regardless of molecular weight, will have the same kinetic energy and therefore the same temperature. For higher atomic mass molecules, they’ll be moving slower; for lower atomic mass molecules, they’ll be moving faster; but their kinetic (translational mode) energy will all be the same at the same temperature.
Therefore, utilizing the equation above, at a temperature of 288 K, the average thermal energy of a molecule is 0.03722663337910374 eV. Again, this is the average… there is actually an equilibrium distribution of energies and thereby molecular speeds.
For CO2, with a molecular weight of 44.0095 amu, at 288 K the molecule will have:
Most Probable Speed {(2kT/m)^1/2} = 329.8802984961799 m/s
Mean Speed {(8kT/πm)^1/2} = 372.23005645833854 m/s
Effective (rms) Speed {(3kT/m)^1/2} = 404.0195258297897 m/s
For N2, with a molecular weight of 28.014 amu, at 288 K the molecule will have:
Most Probable Speed {(2kT/m)^1/2} = 413.46812435139907 m/s
Mean Speed {(8kT/πm)^1/2} = 466.5488177761755 m/s
Effective (rms) speed {(3kT/m)^1/2} = 506.3929647832758 m/s
But if those molecules are at the exact same temperature, they’ll have exactly the same translational mode energy.
This energy at exactly 288 K is equivalent to the energy of a 33.3050 µm photon.
Now, if two molecules collide, their translational energy is cumulative, dependent upon angle of collision. In mathematically describing the kinematics of a binary molecular collision, one can consider the relative motion of the molecules in a spatially-fixed 6N-dimensional phase space frame of reference (lab frame) which consists of 3N spatial components and 3N velocity components, to avoid the vagaries of interpreting energy transfer considered from other reference frames.
Simplistically, for a head-on collision between only two molecules, this is described by the equation:
KE = (1/2 mv^2) [molecule 1] + (1/2 mv^2) [molecule 2]
The Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function, taking into account 3N spatial components and 3N velocity components:
You may surmise, “But at 288 K, the combined kinetic energy of two molecules in a head-on collision isn’t sufficient to excite CO2’s lowest vibrational mode quantum state! It requires the energy equivalent to a 14.98352 µm photon to vibrationally excite CO2, and the combined translational energy of two molecules at 288 K is only equivalent to the energy of a 16.6525 µm photon!”
True, but you’ve not taken into account some mitigating factors…
1) We’re not talking about just translational mode energy, we’re talking about E_tot, the total molecular energy, including translational mode, rotational mode, vibrational mode and electronic mode. At 288 K, nearly all CO2 molecules will be excited in the rotational mode quantum state, increasing CO2’s E_tot. The higher a molecule’s E_tot, the less total energy necessary to excite any of its other modes.
2) Further, the Boltzmann Factor shows that at 288 K, ~10.26671% of N2 molecules are in the N2{v1(1)} vibrationally excited state.
N2{v1(1)} (stretch) mode at 2345 cm-1 (4.26439 µm), correcting for anharmonicity, centrifugal distortion and vibro-rotational interaction
1 cm-1 = 11.9624 J mol-1
2345 cm-1 = 2345 * 11.9624 / 1000 = 28.051828 kJ mol-1
The Boltzmann factor at 288 K has the value 1 / (2805.1828 / 288R) = 0.10266710 which means that 10.26671% of N2 molecules are in the N2{v1(1)} vibrationally excited state.
Given that CO2 constitutes 0.041% of the atmosphere (410 ppm), and N2 constitutes 78.08% of the atmosphere (780800 ppm), this means that 80162.3936 ppm of N2 is vibrationally excited via t-v (translational-vibrational) processes at 288 K. You’ll note this equates to 195 times more vibrationally excited N2 molecules than all CO2 molecules (vibrationally excited or not).
Thus energy will flow from the higher-energy (and higher concentration) N2{v1(1)} molecules to vibrationally ground-state CO2 molecules, exciting the CO2 to its {v3(1)} vibrational mode, whereupon it can drop to its {v1(1)} or {v20(2)} vibrational modes by emission of 9.4 µm or 10.4 µm radiation (wavelength dependent upon isotopic composition of the CO2 molecules).
3) The Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function gives a wide translational mode equilibrium distribution. In order for CO2 to be vibrationally excited, it requires the energy equivalent to a 14.98352 um photon, equating to a CO2 speed of 425.92936688660114 m/s or an N2 speed of 533.8549080851558 m/s.
Remember I wrote above:
———-
For CO2, with a molecular weight of 44.0095 amu, at 288 K the molecule will have:
Most Probable Speed {(2kT/m)^1/2} = 329.8802984961799 m/s
Mean Speed {(8kT/πm)^1/2} = 372.23005645833854 m/s
Effective (rms) Speed {(3kT/m)^1/2} = 404.0195258297897 m/s
For N2, with a molecular weight of 28.014 amu, at 288 K the molecule will have:
Most Probable Speed {(2kT/m)^1/2} = 413.46812435139907 m/s
Mean Speed {(8kT/πm)^1/2} = 466.5488177761755 m/s
Effective (rms) speed {(3kT/m)^1/2} = 506.3929647832758 m/s
———-
For CO2, the Boltzmann Factor probability of one of its molecules being at a speed of 425.92936688660114 m/s; and for N2, the Boltzmann Factor probability of one of its molecules being at a speed of 533.8549080851558 m/s is 0.8461. In other words, for every 100 molecules which are at the Most Probable Speed, another ~84 molecules will be at the speed necessary to vibrationally excite CO2.
Thus at ~288 K and higher temperature, the translational mode energy of atmospheric molecules begins to significantly vibrationally excite CO2, increasing the time duration during which CO2 is vibrationally excited and therefore the probability that the CO2 will radiatively emit. The conversion of translational mode to vibrational mode energy is, by definition, a cooling process. The emission of the resultant radiation to space is, by definition, a cooling process.
As CO2 concentration increases, the population of CO2 molecules able to become vibrationally excited increases, thus increasing the number of CO2 molecules able to radiatively emit, thus increasing photon flux, thus increasing energy emission to space.
As temperature increases, the population of vibrationally excited CO2 molecules increases, thus increasing the number of CO2 molecules able to radiatively emit, thus increasing photon flux, thus increasing energy emission to space.
This is why I state that CO2 becomes a net atmospheric coolant at approximately 288 K… the exact solution is near to impossible to calculate, given the nearly infinite number of angles of molecular collision, the equilibrium distribution of molecular speed, and the fact that atmospheric molecular composition varies spatially and temporally with altitude and water vapor concentration variations.
Particle physics first principles disprove the CAGW hypothesis. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a physical impossibility.
In an atmosphere sufficiently dense such that collisional energy transfer can significantly occur, all radiative molecules play the part of atmospheric coolants at and above the temperature at which the combined translational mode energy of two colliding molecules exceeds the lowest vibrational mode quantum state energy of the radiative molecule. Below this temperature, they act to warm the atmosphere via the mechanism the climate alarmists claim happens all the time, but if that warming mechanism occurs below the tropopause, the net result is an increase of Convective Available Potential Energy, which increases convection, which is a net cooling process.
Oh, nice one. I’m going to archive this post of yours.
D.M., Möller admits that his calculations do not expect any major negative effects from CO2.
But Möller leaves the backdoor / the possibility of a division by >= 0 resulting in <= infinite – which would result in a disaster:
"According to the above-mentioned calculations, an increase in CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm gives us a temperature change ΔT = +1.5° for Δf = -4.66 per cent per deg, and a temperature change ΔT = +9.6° for Δf = 0.
[…]
We recognize that for Δf = 0.8 per cent per deg the temperature change becomes infinite."
It’s NOT rising seas that will cause an apocalypse of oil rig oil spills … its EXTREME icebergs caused by an unfrozen Arctic !!
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27032018/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-data-icebergs-ocean-shipping-oil-gas-drilling-grand-banks-canada.
Ohhhhhh mammmmmma … all those oil rigs will get battered by an armada of icebergs calved and split-up slamming these man-made beasts to the bottom of the oceans … spilling a billion gallons of oil in the fragile arctic.
Ohhhhh mammmmmaaaa … all the “easy” oil has been sucked out of mother Gaia … now all that is left requires EXTREME oil rigs in EXTREME environments.
/gagging on my sarc.
But if you want to see a mess just wait until those icebergs get past Florida and Cuba an start capsizing those Gulf oil drilling rigs.
It’ll be like “Bowling for Crude”.
Nothing new under the sun –
In the 1970ies there were enough greenlandic icebergs so Saudi Arabia thought of them icebergs rowing to the Arabic peninsula for gardening:
https://www.sacbee.com › world › a…
The United Arab Emirates is towing an iceberg to its …
– The Sacramento Bee
05.05.2017 · The iceberg from Antarctica could provide drinking water for … Saudi Arabia considered a similar project in the 1970s, …
http://www.sciencedirect.com › pii › pdf
A Study of the Transport of a Large Tabular Iceberg …
– ScienceDirect.com
von DW Coillet · 1979 ·
Arabian Peninsula by … was to move an iceberg of 200 million metric tons through …. path to Saudi Arabia, could possibly …..
https://www.miamiherald.com › world
The United Arab Emirates is towing an iceberg to its shores for … – Miami Herald
05.05.2017
· The iceberg from Antarctica could provide drinking water for … Saudi Arabia considered a similar project in the 1970s
_____________________________________
https://www.google.com/search?q=1970ies+Saudi+Arabia+Greenland+icebergs+gardens&oq=1970ies+Saudi+Arabia+Greenland+icebergs+gardens&aqs=chrome.
Is Jeremiah Puckett your real name?
Or fake – to match your “beliefs”?
I’m not an Engineer, nor a Geologist, nor an Oil guy, nor even a sports writer. But even I never imagined for a nanosecond that possibly thousands of drill ‘rigs’ across the wold’s oceans are built on almost mile high superstructures.
I mean, the forces on something like that would just be unbelievable. A typhoon up top with a current way below acting like jet stream carrying everything in its wake.
And how the effing h3ll do these people imagine these ‘rigs’ get out there, walk?
Whilst I learned a lot from this article, I sure didn’t learn that ‘rigs’ floated.
Too much wacky baccy in the world, most of it inhaled by the green loonies.
Sure, why not? link
That’s an onshore rig.
David Middleton
Nor is it a mile high.
David Middleton
PS
Have you done any articles on Methane Hydrate?
Love to hear more about that from your perspective.
Not as a resource… The economics don’t work. However, the US has about 1,000 years worth of natural gas in deepwater methane hydrates.
1) Helicopters
2) Crew boat and Billy Pugh Basket.
There was a person in the US Congress that thought islands floated and could tip over
That video never gets old.
Rambling on about island wid.. the thing between the shores, then an island tipping over.
Maybe he was on a small boat as a child. Maybe the insulin levels were not quite right.
And maybe you’re just being nice.
Well, since you mention it…
I was aboard a jack-up rig which after a 30 hour tow was being moved into its drilling location in very shallow water between two islands. Instead of simply being towed over the planned well location and jacking down the legs as normal, the jack-up was floated close to location on the high tide with the two aft legs very slightly lowered. Upon grounding a leg, the rig was pirouetted about several degrees on the grounded leg and the opposite leg would be gounded (with some work on the part of the crews operating the leg’s jacks), the rig having moved forward several metres as a result. The whole process was repeated several times until we’d reached the planned drilling location. By doing so, the grounded leg would support some of the rig’s weight thus allowing the hull to sit slightly higher in the water which lowered the risk of the rig becoming beached as the tide began ebbing.
The daily report descibed the rig being ‘walked into location’.
But that was unfair, as you actually know what you are writing about. Nice evisceration, though.
★★★★★
Thank you, Mr. Middleton.
I, too, am enraged and disgusted by the legal harassment and attempted extortion. As one who is a shareholder of ExxonMobil (and BP and Royal Dutch Shell and Total and PetroChina and ConocoPhillips and LUKoil and Petrobras and others), I am thrilled that ExxonMobil has chosen to draw a line in the sand. I am equally disgusted by the craven pandering to the Green Blob demonstrated by the others.
Regarding .0035 degree C per year temperature rise: The global temperature dataset most favored in WUWT, UAH TLT v6, says about 3 times that. Others say more
Offshore oil rigs would also not notice 0.0129287 °C per year of rising temperatures.
David – you would need to be a pit viper to detect such a small change in temperature!
Drilling contractors build rigs and platforms that can withstand Cook Inlet, Alaska conditions. Fluctuations in the main body of Cook Inlet regularly reach 25 feet (7.6 m) or more and exhibit currents in excess of 5 knots (9.3 km/h) at full tidal flownditions on a daily basis. I’m sure offshore drilling platforms are engineered to withstand the 1-2 inch per century slow sea level rise.
OMG
It’s THAT Charlie Pierce (I admit to listening to NPR’s “Only A Game” where Pierce repeatedly makes a silly arse of himself)
He is a complete idiot.
Yes he is. Same guy that writes (or did) for Esquire, I think, which is why I cancelled my subscription. He’s a complete and total 100% “useful idiot”. What really galls me is how such clueless, innumerate, logic-impaired, blowhards continue to have a platform to shill their garbage ideologies…
Ha ha. I really have to lol out loud at you science deniers. If sea level rise does not affect a floating rig, as you ridiculously claim, what happens when the sea rises, the rig rises, and the pipe stays the same length ?
it snaps, obviously.
remember the gulf spill? I thought not. and that just proves my point.
Many times we have had similar eco-disasters caused by snapping pipes and oil covered sea birds are proof that exxon new. Obviously the rigs are built to withstand tidal conditions which are 100 time more than sea level rise, but that only proves what I have been saying. seal level rise does not affect rigs, but exxon thought it did, therefore they should pay up.
exxon new.
Pipe? LOL out loud?
Ever hear of “waves”? They’re much bigger than all of the sea level rise over the past 150 years. Waves don’t snap risers.
I remember it very clearly. It had nothing to do with sea level rise or even waves. Educate yourself:
Deepwater Horizon: EpiLLOG
Try reading the post. It will help you avoid babbling like an idiot.Never mind, I just read through about a dozen of your other 74 comments on WUWT posts. Carry on with the babbling idiocy.Learn to spell first.Scratch that too.Told you, it’s that Wacky Baccy. 🙂
The Billy Pugh basket is an experience I don’t think I’ll ever forget or want to do again.
I rode a Billy Pugh many times, in the North Sea, Middle East and Nigeria. They are wonderful – look horribly dangerous but aren’t. (Watching half-a-dozen Nigerians cramming themselves inside one (because no-one one the crew-boat was experienced at that stage) was hilarious.)
Used properly, standing on the outside with your luggage inside, and with your arms wound through the netting there is no way you can fall off, but can still get off fast. I can’t say the same for some of the ‘improved’ strange abortions that came in once the ‘elf-n-safety’ crowd weaseled their way into positions of influence.
In the good old days, most oil companies would assign a geologist and a geophysicist to a project. From 1981-2006 I was a geophysicist. The geologists did most of the wellsite work. I’ve worked the Gulf of Mexico since 1988… But I’ve only had to go offshore one time.
Back in 1990, Enserch was drilling a well on Mississippi Canyon 441. We were using the Zapata Lexington semi. We were running a vertical seismic profile (VSP) on the well and the boss wanted a geophysicist out there. My hard hat had expired, so I had to borrow one and I had to go buy a pair of steel-toed boots. I flew from Dallas to New Orleans, rented a car and drove to Port Fourchon. Since MC 441 is only a 3-hour boat trip, we weren’t running a helo. So I rode the crew boat with the Schlumberger logging crew. I figured there must be a dock or an elevator. I literally had no idea how we would get from the boat to the rig. When we arrived at the rig, they all put on life jackets on and went out onto the back deck. My first thought was, “Are we sinking?”
I followed them out. And then watched a crane lower a basket from the helipad to the boat with a couple of righands hagging on to the sides. The Schlumberger guys tosseed their bags into the basket and climbed on to the sides. It then lifted them to the helipad. One of the righands noticed I didn’t have a life jacket and he handed me a work vest and said “Here put dis on” in a very Cajun accent. When the basket was lowered back to the boat, the righand tugged on my vest and said, “Dat be on upside down. Oh, it don’t matta, da fall’ll kill ya”… I survived my introduction to the Billy Pugh Basket… But I cussed the wole way up and the whole way down. I swear they lifted me 100′ above the helipad before they set me down. Plus, the water wasn’t particularly calm that nihgt (3-4′ waves). No one told me to keep one foot on the deck until they lifted the basket. Fortunately a wave didn’t cause the boat to hit the basket as it was being lifted.
Now there’s almost no need for a geologist to go out to the rig. We have real time access to the LWD data. We literally watch the gamma ray and resistivity curves as the well drills. The well I’m drilling right now actually has a pentacombo LWD package: Gamma ray, resistivity, dipole sonic, neutron-density and a pressure tool.
lol david. get a sense of humour. I’m taking the p1ss out of the loons.
no matter what stupidity I can invent…they always go further
Fair enough.
A winky is your friend, if that’s how you roll. Try as I might, I couldn’t hear the vocal cues in your text that clued me in to your humour. If you’d spoken? Maybe we all would have got it ;o)
sorry, British humour. monty python never winked
;o)
“sorry, British humour.”
Not even close to British humour.
Now now, a little winky never hurt anyone, just ask an eternal optimist
“lol david. get a sense of humour. I’m taking the p1ss out of the loons.”
You sure don’t write as if you’re joking. I just think you like to tick people off, for some cheap thrill. Like Dan Cody.
Trolling is what it is called. Never feed the troll.
Thanks David. Just went to you Deepwater Horizon link. Some of it beyond me (well most of it probably) but I grasped the rudiments. I have watched the movie but with a jaundiced approach – Hollywood sceptic. But I’ll watch it again from a more objective and appreciative perspective.
Terrible tragedy, worse reaction, but considering the number of wells drilled in the world, it illustrates just how conscientious the Oil industry really is.
Thanks for keeping us all warm, moving and employed over the years.
We don’t like getting killed or having friends and co-workers get killed… And we much prefer to sell the oil, rather than spill it in the ocean, after spending beaucoup money to drill the wells.
David Middleton August 10, 2019 at 3:36 pm
David, did I just get played by EternalOptimist?
michael
Either we both did… Or he just switched sides… 😉
Nah. I got the Sarc. first read. But then I’m British.
Eternal Optimist,
I strongly suggest that you obtain a modicum of knowledge of the subject of which you write prior to making a complete fool of yourself in public. Snapping pipes from rising seas? Really?
“Snapping pipes from rising seas? Really?”
Not just rising seas, incredibly slowly rising seas. We’re talking slower than a dead slug.
EternalOptimist August 10, 2019 at 3:27 pm
There is a flaw in your argument- the trans-Atlantic cables.
Also if you had any experience working with heavy equipment or machinery you would know that the simple lengthening of the well pipe is not a big deal.
Before labeling anyone a science denier understand what science is and what it is not.
Understand how things work and why things work.
Also understand when a uneducated person laughs they are the joke.
A link for the trans-Atlantic cable.
https://www.mitel.com/articles/learn-about-transatlantic-cable
michael
lol the transatlantic cable goes on the floor of the atlantic. so how can that be a floor of my argument ?
vote Cortez . and Gore. bring some brains back into the science
Vote AOCortez and you will get the government you deserve similar to those that don’t vote at all
EternalOptimist August 10, 2019 at 6:52 pm
Hi you may have oops ed You thought vertical rather then horizontal. Its late sorry for spelling.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/seafloor-spreading/
If the trans-Atlantic cable can deal with the rate of seafloor spreading then, well think a little bit more.
I need a more worthy opponent. Sigh, Think. Ask questions.
michael
“Also understand when a uneducated person laughs they are the joke.”
Oh dear.
Two terms you should probably learn about before squawking about “snapping pipes”:
Slip joints and drill string compensators.
EternalOptimist
“exxon new” versus Exxon old?
That would be Esso, Humble Oil and/or Standard Oil of New Jersey… LOL!
Oh goodie, something to ridicule. From the Robinson Report (1968) referring to Moller (1963):
Well, we’ve had about a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since then.
Since the argument is that ExxonMobil failed to disclose that they knew in 1968 that climate change would impact future earnings, then anyone who owned shares continuously since they can exchange those shares (+ dividends paid out) in return for the equivalent of a government bond from that time
You forgot the /sarc tag.
David, just a thanks from 40 year
(retired) petroleum geologist/petrophysicist. (Canada,GOM,Norway,Qatar,Argentina,Russia um… et al). I thoroughly enjoy all of your well researched and cogent posts. On occasion I have minor quibbles but you’re performing a valuable service to WUWT readers by showing how diligent and conscientious
the E&P industry really is.. despite blessedly infrequent screw-ups. I’m proud to have played a part. Thanks again.
I’m sure I set myself up for lots of minor quibbles… I spend most of my time interpreting 3d seismic data… Give me a 5″ log and I’m lost… 😉
One of the biggest problems with wind farms is their locations, usually well away from the towns and cities which need the power.
As per the photos of the South Australian towers carrying the power from the windmills, it would seem that the owners faced with the massive costs of building the conventual type towers, which appear able to handle all extreme weather situations, they decided to cut their costs by building small and flimsy towers.
So even if the windmills had not shut down, the fall of the towers would have cut off the power.
MJE VK5ELL
Wrong article.
In 1992 when Hurricane Andrew swept across the Gulf to make landfall a little West of New Orleans several offshore rigs were severely damaged by Andrew’s passing.
From the ever fallible memory, two severely damaged rigs were dismantled, one of them was replace the other capped. Other rigs in the Gulf were hardened and/or raised a little higher. Many rig workers were thrilled to not be on a rig with Hurricane Andrew came on through.
We loved to hang a rig hook off any of the many Gulf rigs and enjoy fishing. Rig hooks were conduit pipe bent in the shape of a shepherd’s crook.
With many of the rigs further into the Gulf sitting over deep water, hooking up to the rig was a lot easier than hauling 1,000 plus feet of anchor rode and anchor.
Those oil rigs are fish magnets.
“Those oil rigs are fish magnets.”
Yup, the little fishies hide in der shadow of the rig, and the big fishies know it.
scary when the big fishies are sharks.
trainers at helicopter and sea survival courses in WA were only half joking when the hypothermia video was finished (usually a production from the UK) and they’d reassure us that one could survive 72hours immersion in the India Ocean before succumbing to hypothermia; but they’d add that the sharks would have eaten you long before the deprivations of hypothermia manifest themselves.
…and not much fun fishing from the helideck when all you reel in are the uneaten heads of little fishies.
The other side of the Anthropogenic Global Warming coin is the Anthropogenic Global Cooling predicted by the Nuclear Winter Theory. It gained traction in the 1980s, twenty years after Exxon was supposed to have become enlightened about how the atmosphere works. The predictions have generally been discredited based on what happened during the Kuwait war when the retreating Iraqis ignited something like 600 oil wells in 1991, causing sooty smoke that blotted out the sun locally for months. I would recommend reading the Wikipedia article at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
The Milankovitch Cycles of glaciation theory, despite being proposed in the 1920s, wasn’t really accepted until the late-1970s, when Science Magazine published research on Fourier analysis of data, demonstrating that the cycles were present in sediment cores. Again, illustrating that Exxon couldn’t have had definitive knowledge, in the 1960s, of how climate works.
The reality is, 50 years after Exxon was supposed to have understood the role of CO2 well enough to have legal culpability for their actions, we STILL don’t understand the system well enough to justify abandoning our energy infrastructure based on speculation. The Chicken Littles rely on the authority of ‘experts’ who think more highly of themselves than their peers do.
It doesn’t matter one twit to the Chicken Littles, ……… “Roundup” cause cancer ….. simply because Monsanto (Bayer Corp) has hundreds-of-million$ in cash with nothing else to spend it on.
Redistribution of wealth is easy …… iffen ya pick the right jurors.
Clyde Spencer – August 10, 2019 at 8:13 pm
You are absolutely, positively, correct about that.
To wit:
Standard Oil Co. Inc. was an American oil producing, transporting, refining, marketing company, and monopoly. Established in 1870 by John D. Rockefeller and Henry Flagler
In 1911, Standard Oil Co. Inc. was broken up into 34 companies, with Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, …… and its Esso brand being one of them.
But because of, the Japanese if I remember correctly, the name Esso was changed to Exxon ….. and then in 1972 the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey became the Exxon Corporation.
Maybe the John D. Rockefeller heirs should be sued for not fessing up about the dangers of CAGW.
More trivia than you could shake a stick at…
https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/doe04
David Middleton – August 11, 2019 at 11:39 am
Excerpted from posted trivia, to wit:
I remember it well,
The oil companies spent MILLION$ to research Prudhoe Bay and when they wanted to construct the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline the environmentalists said “no way in hell” and fought the construction tooth n’ nail via Lawyer and the Courts.
So, what did the oil companies do? Well, I’ll tell you what they did.
They started the Arab-Israeli War …. and the Arabs got really PO’ed at the US and initiated the 1973–1974 Oil Embargo and the US had to implement “gasoline, diesel and fuel oil rationing”.
Well now, when the environmentalists couldn’t buy any gasoline or diesel for their vehicles, …….. and their arses got mighty cold during the winter of 73’ due to lack of fuel oil, …… they quickly began “singing” a different tune of, …. “BUILD IT, BUILD IT, …… build the pipeline, … we will help pay for it.”
Timeline:
1968 – oil discovered in Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay field
1969 – 1972 – environmentalists prevent Trans-Alaskan Pipeline construction
1973 – 1974 – Arab-Israeli War flared-up and the Oil Embargo was activated
1974 – 1977 – Trans-Alaskan Pipeline was constructed and oil began flowing
How did oil companies start the Yom Kippur War?
“How did oil companies start the Yom Kippur War?”
If I knew exactly, I would tell you.
But this is what is not logical, to wit:
So, David M, …… tell me, …… why in the world would the US provoke an Arab oil embargo when the US economy was highly dependent upon the 6.2 million barrels/day of imported Arab oil?
Without that Arab oil the US was vulnerable to attack by Russia or China.
Israel is our ally. Back in 1973, Egypt and Syria were allies of the Soviet Union and we were in a Cold War against the Soviet Union.
So what, ….. the Cold War had been raging for 27 years …… and was nothing more than a phony “Cash Cow” that was perpetrated upon the populace to “scare the bejesus out of them” so that the Politicians could extort more and more tax money, ……… the same as the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the War on Crime, the War on Climate Change, etc. There was no winning claimed and no phony Wars were won.
And …. D B Cooper was not a money-extorting airplane high-jacker.
David M, do I need to remind you that it was big US corporations that pretty much dictated what a few Central and South American governments did. The term Banana Republic wasn’t coined by a Russian.
I wish I had been one of the investors to be hoodwinked by Exxon back in the 50s. I was old enough then to have invested, too! I laughed at the statement regarding Exxon not having advised investors that climate change regulations were going to increase risk to investors! With the wings falling off the CC scam and regulations ready to collapse, they’ll find Exxon had inside info on this and didnt advise investors of the resultant windfall. Boy, lefty delusions and wifty poofty world views are semm to be terminal conditions.
So 7 – 9 inches per century is going to swamp these things ???
lol
It seems to me that the only reason that Exxon was targetted was because unlike all the other Big oil companies, Exxon did not give in to greenmail.
Good article, David Middleton. I distinctly remember the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout and fire, which is more than adequately described here: http://theoildrum.com/node/6493.
From the source: The blowout and oil spill on the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico was caused by a flawed well plan that did not include enough cement between the 7-inch production casing and the 9 7/8-inch protection casing. The presumed blowout preventer (BOP) failure is an important but secondary issue. Although the resulting oil spill has potentially grave environmental implications, recent efforts to limit the flow with an insertion tube have apparently been effective. Continuous efforts to slow or stop the flow include drilling two nearby relief wells that may intersect the MC 252 wellbore within 60-90 days.
The oil spill in Alaska was the result of bad navigation procedures by the skipper of the Exxon Valdez, per this article: On the evening of March 23, 1989, Exxon Valdez left the port of Valdez, Alaska, bound for Long Beach, California, with 53 million gallons of Prudhoe Bay crude oil onboard. At four minutes after midnight on March 24, the ship struck Bligh Reef, a well-known navigation hazard in Alaska’s Prince William Sound. The impact of the collision tore open the ship’s hull, causing some 11 million gallons of crude oil to spill into the water. https://www.history.com/topics/1980s/exxon-valdez-oil-spill
These things are easy enough to find, which self-absorbed EteranlOPtimist didn’t bother to engage in. If people like that are going to publicly complain about oil spills, why aren’t they complaining about the damage to the Persian Gulf when fleeing Iraqis set Kuwait’s oil wells on fire? And if “greenism” is so important to the Greenbeans, then why are they using/wearing hydrocarbon-based stuff???????
This is a good, informative article. Thanks for writing it.
Deepwater Horizon was the result of multiple seemingly small deviations from procedure. Even then, it could have been averted if they hadn’t misinterpreted the negative pressure test.
The requirements for covering hydrocarbon zones with cement and running cement bond logs are extremely strict now… And that’s actually a good regulation.
David, I am in awe of your command of movie trivia. That should be in the panvideon of great movie lines.
My Favorite Year is a GREAT movie… Peter O’Toole, Joe Bologna and Cameron Mitchell… Two Thumbs Up! I finally had the opportunity to work that line into a post!
NY agenda law scare me, not the climate.
Did Exon know that we would be having a fake climate crisis?
Did they know that climate science would be hijacked for political agenda?
Did/do they know the truth?
Life is experiencing the best weather/climate and especially, beneficial CO2 in the last 1,000 years as we continue to head into the impending climate optimum.
So the lefties are suing oil companies because they didn’t foresee that lefty politicians in the future would try to regulate them out of existence? What a farce. Something I would only consider coming out of “Yes Minister!”
The scary global warming industry relies on tax payer debt as it’s fuel .
The industry would just like a nice big fat sliver of the military industrial complex cash .
Exxon is one of the fossil fuel leaders that has produced the highest standard of living in over 1 billion years so
attack them for selling a legal product everyone uses . Such obvious desperation .
But don’t we see a pattern here . The Democrat failing states are so screwed they need a sugar daddy .
How about a little sue and settle Exxon ? Come on play along and be our collector bail out our pension plan liabilities .
Speaking of “who Knew ” . When did NY know its pension plans were virtually insolvent yet kept pretending they were otherwise .
wih it’s good to drink koppi while you love it