Guest post by David Middleton
When I first saw this headline, I thought I was going to have fun ridiculing it… But once I started reading it, I realized that it was a polite version of the classic George Carlin routine…
Published on January 2, 2020
False Humility Will Not Save the Planet
written by Maarten BoudryAt the root of our climate problem, writes Pope Francis in his ecological encyclical Laudato Si, lies our human pride and arrogance: “The misuse of creation begins when we no longer recognize any higher instance than ourselves, when we see nothing else but ourselves.” Coming from a Catholic Pope, such sentiments are hardly surprising. For centuries, Christians thinkers have railed against pride as the first and worst among the seven deadly sins. But Francis is far from alone in his view. Many climate activists today, even though they don’t necessarily believe in a personal deity, share Francis’ diagnosis of our environmental worries. They too believe that our climate crisis is the result of human overreach and arrogance, of overstepping natural boundaries. Indeed, this secular environmentalist worldview comes with its own account of the fall of man from an original state of harmony with Nature. Once upon a time, humans lived as an animal alongside other animals, keenly aware of our proper place within a larger ecosystem. We enjoyed nature’s bountiful resources, but we were respectful of her limits. But then along came the scientific revolution and, soon after that, the industrial revolution. By unravelling Nature’s mysteries we gained mastery over her, and we began to treat her as an object to be mercilessly exploited. We turned, as a species, into planetary plunderers.
It’s a compelling narrative but, much like the Genesis story of original sin, it’s hogwash. When we were still living as hunter-gatherers, our ecological footprint was substantially higher, per capita, than today. Our ancestors laid a larger claim on the ecosystem, in return for a much lower standard of living. With a population of no more than a few million, humans managed to wipe out all of the large land animals almost everywhere they set foot. It was the same story with deforestation: relatively small human populations brought about large-scale destruction. Today our planet hosts 7.7 billion people, and our lives are wealthier and healthier than ever before, but if we all lived like our hunter-gatherer forebears, the planet could support about 100 million of us at most. The main reason why our ancestors didn’t wreak even greater ecological havoc is that they numbered too few and died too young.
The right way to look at anthropogenic climate change is as an unexpected side-effect of something that, by and large, proved an immense blessing to humanity. Sure, if we had left all those fossilized remains of ancient animals and plants under the ground, we would not now be stuck with rising global temperatures. But then our lives would also have remained solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short, as they had been for the better part of world history until around 1800.
[…]
Here’s the nub of the problem. Fossil fuels deliver a range of important services to humanity, which have historically been responsible for the unprecedented levels of wealth and prosperity we are enjoying today. So the challenge before us is to find carbon-neutral alternatives for all these services, which deliver all the benefits but not the costs.
[…]
Alas, despite huge investments in solar and wind, both energy sources jointly account for about one percent of global energy production. We can expect their share to grow in the coming years and decades, but eventually the technology will run up against the laws of physics.
[…]
It gets worse, because the technological solutions that are truly effective for tackling our climate crisis are often exactly the ones that are denounced and opposed by climate activists. Take electricity production again, which accounts for 25 percent of global emissions (and potentially much more if we start electrifying cars and other things). If our goal is “deep decarbonization,” by far the most effective way to get there is nuclear energy…
[…]
The only countries that have thus far managed to decarbonize their electricity sector, such as France and Sweden, did so by relying heavily on nuclear power (and they weren’t even doing it on purpose, as climate change was not on the agenda back then).
Quillette
Gotta love this line: “The right way to look at anthropogenic climate change is as an unexpected side-effect of something that, by and large, proved an immense blessing to humanity.”
The author also linked to an interesting essay by Ted Nordhaus:
The Empty Radicalism of the Climate Apocalypse
France and Sweden respectively generate about 72% and 40% of their electricity from nuclear power. While I agree with Dr. Boudry and Mr. Nordhaus on the merits of nuclear power and the counterproductive nature of the climate apocalypse crowd, I doubt our agreement would extend much further.
Dr. Boudry failed to mention two other essential components of “deep decarbonization,” natural gas and carbon carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS). Fortunately, there is no urgent need for “deep decarbonization.”
That said, the US is leading the world in both of these areas. The primary reason that US CO2 emissions have declined over the past decade or so has been the transition from coal-fired to natural gas-fired electricity generation.
And the US is currently leading the world in CCUS efforts.
US leads new wave of carbon capture and storage deployment
BY BRAD PAGE, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 01/05/20As we ring in the new decade, it has become ever more apparent that the next ten years will be crucial to leaping on decarbonization efforts. Time is not on our side. We cannot favor one technology over another. An all-of-the-above approach is necessary. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies must be part of the portfolio of solutions to decrease emissions from energy-intensive sectors and existing infrastructure, as well as remove CO2 already present in the atmosphere.
[…]
The U.S., already home to 10 large-scale facilities capturing more than 25 mtpa of CO2, is the global leader on CCS deployment. The Global CCS Institute recently added 10 facilities to its database, eight of which are in the U.S., and were driven by sustained government support. Notably by the 45Q tax credit — the most progressive CCS specific incentive globally — and further supportive mechanisms on the state level.
The U.S. Department of Energy also selected nine facilities for Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) study support. Industry sources say that more than two dozen facilities could potentially be announced once the Internal Revenue Service finalizes the guidance and rule for the 45Q tax credit.
[…]
The Department of Energy’s Carbon Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise Initiative — also known as CarbonSAFE — which focuses on developing geologic storage for 50 million tonnes and more, is already showing the first signs of success. In the U.S., six of the eight facilities added to the Global CCS Institute’s database are part of the program.
[…]
Innovators are also working on the next generation of technologies. The Allam Cycle aims to be cost-competitive with conventional combined-cycle natural gas plants while also capturing 99 percent of CO2. Several of the facilities selected within DOE’s FEED-study support include retrofitting natural gas-fired power plants with CCS. With natural gas being the fastest-growing fuel in 2018, and not a single natural gas power plant equipped with CCS globally, this is a welcome development.
[…]
Brad Page is the CEO of the Global CCS Institute, a think tank backed by governments and businesses.
The Hill
While CCS makes no economic sense, absent the 45Q tax credit, CCUS makes enormous economic sense.
Enhanced Oil Recovery
Carbon Capture Boosting Oil RecoverySeptember 2018
By J. Greg Schnacke, John Harju, John Hamling, James Sorensen and Neil Wildgust
PLANO, TX.–Chevron Corp. initiated the first large-scale enhanced oil recovery project in the world to use carbon dioxide as the working fluid in 1972 in the Texas Permian Basin. Four decades later in 2013, CO2 EOR contributed nearly 280,000 barrels a day of U.S. oil production from more than 100 sites. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that by 2017, U.S. CO2 EOR production had grown to 300,000 bbl/d.
In 2010, approximately 22 percent of the CO2 used in U.S. EOR operations was obtained from industrial sources. Additional EOR projects initiated since 2013 in Montana, Wyoming and Texas that also use captured CO2 confirm that the supply of anthropogenic CO2 is growing and suggest an increasing proportion in the total supply of CO2 for EOR.
The potential to deploy carbon capture technology at greater scale across power generation and other industrial sectors may provide an opportunity to proliferate both the number and geographical distribution of CO2 EOR operations, which could boost domestic oil production. Several oil producers such as Denbury Onshore LLC are expanding EOR operations already to capitalize on the use of these new anthropogenic CO2 sources as they become available.
[…]
Studies show that virtually all the CO2 supplied to (or purchased for) an EOR project remains safely and securely stored within the geologic formation. Using anthropogenic CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, such as from a coal-fired power plant, is considered a form of carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS).
The CO2 storage inherent in EOR also is referred to as “associated storage.” Associated storage is considered by many environmental and energy policymakers to be a technically and economically viable means by which greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced.
An EOR project at the Denbury-operated Bell Creek oil field in southeastern Montana provides an example of how applying anthropogenic CO2 can result in incremental oil recovery and associated CO2 storage. The anthropogenic CO2 for the field is sourced from the Lost Cabin and Shute Creek natural gas processing facilities in Wyoming, and is transported to the Bell Creek oil field by pipeline.
Between the beginning of CO2 injection in May 2013 and December 2017, more than 4.8 million barrels of incremental oil have been produced from the field, resulting in more than 4.8 million metric tons (tonnes) of associated CO2 storage (Figure 2).
[…]
Size Of The Prize
EIA’s 2018 Annual Energy Outlook forecasts U.S. production from CO2 EOR will grow to 390,000 bbl/d by 2025. Literature suggests the potential for CO2 EOR from conventional oil fields in the United States is substantially larger than that projected by EIA.
A U.S. Department of Energy-funded study by Kuuskra and others (2013) concluded that, assuming an oil price of $85 a barrel and a CO2 price of $40 a tonne, applying “next generation” CO2 EOR technology could yield 100 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil. That study also estimates the volume of CO2 required to recover 100 billion barrels of oil is 30 billion tonnes, which is equal to 35 years of CO2 emissions from 140 gigawatts of coal-fired power.
To date, commercial CO2 EOR has been applied almost exclusively to conventional oil reservoirs. Unconventional reservoirs, including tight oil systems such as the Bakken in North Dakota or residual oil zones, offer considerable increased potential to use CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, subject to developing the appropriate advancements in technology.
Studies conducted by the EERC, including field trials, have shown initial promise and underline the potential of these future EOR applications. EERC results suggest the size of the prize for CO2 EOR in the North Dakota portion of the unconventional Bakken petroleum system ranges from 1.8 billion to 16.0 billion barrels of oil.
[…]
American Oil & Gas Reporter
The reduction in CO2 emissions should be viewed as lagniappe and another “side-effect of something that, by and large, proved an immense blessing to humanity” and will continue to do so for decades to come.
This article was first published in the on-line news magazine “Quillette”. I think it is unethical of WUWT to copy it without clearly, and I mean beginning with big headlines, announcing that fact.
I clearly put the excerpts in blockquote and attributed the article to Quillette. Learn how to read.
Yes, I noticed your small-print reference to Quillette – I suggest it should be more prominent. And how about, at the very least, including in your piece a link to the original Quillette article which is actually well worth reading it its entirety.
That’s a function of the version of Word Press currently used by WUWT.
Interesting. Thanks, David
I will not give Quillette time or attention. It / they / editors are long ago impeached. Learn the proper use of the word and its meaning. Positive prejudice.
It is at the bottom of the first section. Author and publish date are also there at the top.
the original Authors name AND the quilette link ARE provided By WUWT
the actual article is by David and his commentary and charts etc are far more extensive than the quilette clip he started the item with
Thanks for IDing yourself as a weak troll, Andy.
Perhaps Pope Francis could help us tackle the population part of this problem by allowing, or better still, encouraging birth control and improving the status of women within his church. Like most Western Catholics, i have limited my family and i can feed and educate those I have. The Church seems to be perfectly happy allowing children to be born , many whom have limited futures, because their families are poor in countries like Venezuela where there are riches but the wealthy catholic dictators steal from their own poor. Our current Pope is as much a hypocrite as those he condemns.
It’s all about increasing the base …
Spending trillions trying to stop climate change, instead of using it to save the millions who needlessly starve to death each year, is simply genocide. So no, it is not about increasing the base, it is about Marxism. This pope is evil, as the previous pope explains…
“”…this struggle (against all injustice), it was said, would have to be a political struggle, because the structures (of oppression) were strengthened and maintained by politics. Thus redemption became a political process, for which Marxist philosophy offered the essential directions. It became a task that men themselves could — indeed had to — take in hand and became, at the same time, the object of quite practical hopes; faith was changed from ‘theory’ into practice, into concrete redeeming action in the liberation process.”
“…where the Marxist ideology of liberation had been consistently applied, a total lack of freedom had developed, whose horrors were now laid bare before the eyes of the entire world. Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.”
-Pope Benedict XVI
I’ve thought for a long while that it was strange that Benedict should be made to stand down, because of illness, and yet he is still alive! Replaced by a communist, how convenient. He is the one and only pope for whom I ever felt any respect.
Gator,
I can’t agree that the Pope is evil, just wildly misinformed. What I see is a Pope who’s ideology blinds him from seeing evil intent masquerading as the false benevolence of saving the world. A Pope will by default reject evil and not encourage it, but they have to recognize it first and like any other human being can be easily fooled.
His actions are evil, and I define a man by his actions. One does not need to know that one is evil, to be evil. This pope is a fool.
co2isnotevil, whether by malice or by ignorance, the end results is the same – decidedly not good.
All of western Europe is well below the replacement level of fertility to maintain its population. The US is hovering around 2.05- just barely replacement level. Given modern medicine it may still be at replacement level.
The underdeveloped countries have fertility levels of 4-6 to get a moderate, but significant, population growth. As soon as less developed countries reach a wealth productivity around $7,000/yr. population growth and fertility drop dramatically.
All of this has little to do with religion. Poor people have more children because the families need the workers and kids tend to die young. The US went through this transition between about 1870 and 1930. My father’s family had 14 children(3 died early), my mom’s family had 12(3 died early, childbirth, WWI, and the Influenza). Baby boomers were a special case- much needed for the huge boom in production after WWII, and poorly effective birth control other than abstinence.
You might consider that women are limited to child bearing to the ages of about 16-35. Too early and there are excessive deaths of both mothers and children. Over 35-40 fertility goes down fairly quickly and pregnancy problems, including death are much more likely.
Venezuela is an extremely poor example. Just look at the devastation released their in the last 12-15 years by Socialist governments and their Cuban bosses. The wealthiest country by per capita production to the poorest. The pope is actually a closet socialist, though he doesn’t push socialist ideals very hard, except for the Climate Change agenda.
“Carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS).”
CO2 is NOT a Problem. Schemes to reduce or store it are without merit.
That’s not the reality businesses have to operate within.
unfortunately
Reality is what it is. Many states have imposed carbon regulations and the Federal government, under the Trump adminstration, is providing financial incentives for CCS and CCUS. Irrespective of anyone’s opinions about the science, businesses are legally obligated to comply with regulations and a legally binding fiduciary obligation to take full advantage of the 45Q tax credit and all other incentives. Businesses don’t get to operate in skeptic Fantasyland.
Nor will skeptics ever make any progress as long as businesses bend over and grab their ankles. Only with a huge stand on the part of business will this end. And since the world is full of cowards who think you can toss a chicken to an aligator to save yourself from being eaten (instead of taking out the alligator), I see a very, very dark future, literally and figurative. It was illegal to toss the tea into the Boston Harbor. I guess the libs are right—Americans have no right to exist as they do today They broke the law. Living under a monarchy was the only proper way to go because it was LEGAL.
Businesses don’t have a choice. Civil disobedience isn’t an option. If you don’t like the way government regulates, vote for businesses candidates like Donald Trump.
Sheri and David are both correct, and Sheri is very direct. I bet we can all agree that reducing carbon, that leads to CO2, is not really a good idea until it is somewhere around 1,000 ppm, especially as we head toward another glacial cycle in this Ice Age we live in.
Being in the business world I reiterate, unfortunately. The US has a real labor shortage issue, just think if it wasn’t for tax laws and regulation how many Lawyers and accounts would become available to do something actually useful and that created wealth instead of just shifting it around.
I think we have almost as many regulatory compliance specialists as we have geoscientists.
Ron,
It’s not a matter of what’s a good idea. Corporations have to comply with laws and regulations. We don’t have a civil disobedience option.
Regarding the 45Q tax credit, if you have a coal-fired power plant that will be shut down due to its CO2 emissions, if the tax credit enables the plant to profitably operate, you have a fiduciary obligation to at least explore CCS/CCUS as an option. If you’re a company like Denbury, where CO2 EOR is your core business, it would be criminal negligence to not try to take advantage of the tax credit. Hell, it would be criminal negligence to not lobby for an expansion of the 45Q tax credit.
Sheri — ROFLMAO (even tho it’s a serious issue).
Corporations have to comply with laws and regulations. We don’t have a civil disobedience option
actually, you do. It’s called taking your business elsewhere and, most importantly, letting the government you are taking your business away from know why. If a state has onerous regulations/laws, move to a state that doesn’t. If the onerous regulations/laws are at the national level than move to a nation that doesn’t. Granted that’s easier said than done, but many businesses have done it to various extents over the years. It’s one of the (many) reasons a lot of manufacturing jobs are now overseas.
If you have a coal-fired power plant in New Mexico that runs on coal from a nearby coal mine in New Mexico, you can’t move that business to Texas because New Mexico is imposing a CO2 emissions cap. You can either close the coal-fired power plant, which will shut down the coal mine, or you can try to find a way to reduce the CO2 emissions. That particular coal-fired power plant is close to the Cortez pipeline that supplies CO2 to Permian Basin EOR projects in Texas. If the 45Q tax credit makes it economic to install CCUS at the power plant and build a short pipeline to tie into the Cortez pipeline, the power plant owner has a fiduciary responsibility to at least try to make that happen.
I did say it was easier said than done. The fact remains you do have means of “Civil disobedience”, contrary to your assertion. That such “Civil disobedience” may involve difficulty, well it’s not much of a “Civil disobedience” if it doesn’t.
And of course none of that changes the physical reality. Just because a government passes a stupid law or regulation, (like say “the sun will rise in the west”) doesn’t change the reality (the sun will continue rising in the East as it always has done) even if businesses can find a way to turn those stupid laws or regulation to their advantage.
Businesses still have to obey the law.
And the law still doesn’t, nor will it ever, change physical reality
The physical reality is that a company that disregards the laws and regulations will be fined, prosecuted and/or shut down by government. The degree to which the climate is sensitive to CO2 and how beneficial or harmful more of it might be is totally irrelevant to what the laws and regulations are.
You can vote for people who will change the laws and regulations or lobby the government to change them… However, businesses have to obey them as they are, not as we would like them to be.
The physical reality is [followed by stuff that is *NOT* physical reality]
David, you are once again conflating the physical reality with something that is *NOT* physical reality. They are two different things, learn the difference.
The laws are very much physical reality. Neither your opinion, nor my opinion, nor even Michael Mann’s opinion about climate science is physical anything.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas = Physical reality. Everything beyond that is opinion to varying degrees.
“cowards who think you can toss a chicken to an aligator to save yourself from being eaten ” The solution is to put the hand grenade inside the chicken ahead of time.
The slickest solutions I’ve heard to the ‘keep it in the ground’ mob yelling about the Alberta oilsands (for instance) are:
1. Seal the bitumen inside recycled plastic pods, ship to Asia in empty containers. Bitumen / asphalt is used for road surfaces and releases much less CO2 than making cement for concrete.
2. Use CO2 as the working fluid in a turbine, and use oxygen combustion, rather than atmosphere. The circulating fluid is mostly pure CO2, and can be stored underground for later use, sold to greenhouse operators, or used by industry. We’ll run this machine whenever solar power and wind turbines can’t provide all the electricity we need, until the fuel supply runs out. Water is a byproduct.
What you believe about something like Global Warming, Climate Change, Peak Oil, or Fusion (hot or cold) is unimportant in the short term. If you want to be a winner, you have to play better, or play a different game. It doesn’t matter in the slightest (right now) what effect CO2 had, in the past, on vegetation in Australia. The message should be “Doesn’t matter… busy saving lives… trenching in water lines, too busy… protest away, if you’ve always wanted to be a non-volunteer firefighter. If you can carry that sign you can operate a shovel, get on the truck…”
The laws are very much physical reality.
“You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means” – Inigo Montoya
No, David, they are most definitely not *physical* reality. Laws are abstract concepts, nothing physical about them. CO2 is a physical things. Laws don’t and can’t change the properties of CO2, no matter what the laws say. Laws claiming CO2 is dangerous does not make it physically so. Neither your opinion, nor my opinion, nor even the United States Congress’s opinion about laws is physical anything.
Couod you please also share your opinion on the physical reality of the United States Dollar?
Randy , do you mean the physical “paper” bill that’s about 6.14 length × 2.61 width× 0.0043 in thickness and has the picture of a dead president on it or do you mean the concept (Hint: concepts are not physical) of the US dollar as a fiat currency and/or as the primary reserve currency for the world’s financial systems and/or the “value” of the US dollar?
Whoa! I meant to ask your opinion on the *physical* reality of currency, not debate the existence of it. It clearly *exists*, as does a ‘business’ ir a ‘Carbon Tax’ But does it *physically* exist any more or less than does a ‘business’?
The physical U.S dollar is legal tender, there’s a law that says so, and it’s even written on the paper. The physical paper itseĺf is worthless without the law, so the law backing the paper becomes physically, part of the paper and the thing that makes it currency?
The laws around Carbon Tax are also written on paper and denominated in various currencies. Would you say that your general disparagement of any carbon tax makes them all less physically real than currency? Or are they roughly equally non physically existant?
Could we then agree that without ‘law’ there is also no ‘business’ and the pedantic, pointless, and time wasting discussion of the question of whether a Carbon Tax law can affect business ‘physically’ or not, cannot logically be answered, since no ‘business’ has a ‘physical’ existence to affect?
They operate within the reality of unreality, i.e., RE fantasizing.
The only rational approach for the world is to have about 80% of all primary energy from nuclear.
That needs to be implemented this century to serve about 10 to 12 billion, as fossil fuels start to diminish.
Anything else is pure hogwash on a physical reality basis and a cost/kWh basis.
“The only rational approach for the world is to have about 80% of all primary energy from nuclear.”
Note that France’s Messmer Plan started rapidly expanding their nuclear electricity production at a time when their total annual usage was about 260TWh. They now produce 379 TWh from nuclear, roughly 145% of their 1980’s total usage, and electricity demand has since doubled.
I would imagine that France has a larger share of primary energy that is electricity, rather than fossil, and hopefully they can continue to build new, larger reactors as their older ones reach decommissioning age. I’ve heard something about that 80% being impossible with existing fission technology, as some of the non-fuel materials required are not available in sufficient quantity.
David, with all due respect real reality doesn’t care about the human-imposed false reality businesses have to operate in. Steve Case correctly stated the real world reality: CO2 is NOT a Problem (no matter what contrary nonsense humans wish to believe) and as a result of that reality schemes to reduce it are without real merit (no matter what “merit” they may give virtue signalers of false reality – the only caveat is that there are real uses for storages but storage in response to the “problem” of CO2 isn’t one of them). The fact that humans wish to impose their own “reality” on top of the reality of the real world doesn’t change the real facts.
Reality is the fact that some States limit carbon emissions, while the Federal government incentives CCU & CCUS. Businesses have no option to disregard regulations, nor do they have the option to fail to take advantage of tax credits, if they have an opportunity to do so. If a company can improve its bottom line by taking advantage of the 45Q tax credit, it has a fiduciary responsibility to do so.
Legal is moral and right, illegal is bad and wrong. Got it.
David, man’s laws don’t change physical reality. “CO2 is NOT a Problem” is a factual statement about physical reality. Laws can change, reality does not.
“CO2 is NOT a problem,” is no more of a factual statement than “CO2 is a serious problem.” Both statements are opinions; although the “NOT a problem” opinion is more valid, in my opinion. The laws, regulations and tax codes are the reality that businesses have to comply with and operate under. They don’t have options on the laws and regulations and they have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize any benefits available under the tax codes.
I don’t think 400 ppmv CO2 is a problem. I think it’s clearly better than 180 ppmv. I’m reasonably certain that it won’t be a significant problem at 600 ppmv. Beyond that, I simply don’t know and have some concerns above 1,000 ppmv. That’s why I support economically viable ways to lower the trajectory of the CO2, pushing 600-1,000 ppmv further out into the future. However, none of that is relevant to the laws and regulations businesses have to comply with today. If I had a CO2 EOR project that was supplied by a natural source and the 45Q tax credit made it more economic to get the CO2 from a nearby coal-fired power plant that had recently installed CCUS to comply with regulations and/or take advantage of the 45Q tax credit, I would have a fiduciary responsibility to do so, irrespective of my scientific opinion regarding CO2.
Business has to treat all government requirements and incentives as business risks or benefits. In California, CO2 emissions are valued at about $200/MT CO2 equivalents (CO2 and all other GHG’s), so this is not a trivial issue. All fuel in California has to be accounted for in terms of “Carbon Intensity” under the LCFS. California has mandated a reduction in CI of all transportation fuels under the general authority of AB32, the “Global Warming Solutions Act”. It may be wishful thinking, but it is reality in California.
Many companies build business success based on these state government requirements. Neste Oil has made millions of the California LCFS Carbon Credit Trading Scheme. They “reduce” the CI of fuels they produce by using “renewable” resources, in their case, used cooking oils. Neste imports approximately 20,000 bbl/day of renewable diesel into CA and receives LCFS carbon credits of about $2/gal plus RINs worth about $1.40/gal. These are revenues that cannot be ignored and make Neste about $500 million a year in additional revenue.
So we cannot ignore these issues even if we do not believe or think that they will make any difference in the long term.
And when you build a business dependent on regulatory schemes, you absolutely assume a big risk that one election could sweep those regulations away.
When you build a company around a regulatory environment you are not creating wealth you are shifting wealth from producers to you via government power. No wealth creation, no long term economic growth, no middle class, no future for our children.
“Sure, if we had left all those fossilized remains of ancient animals and plants under the ground, we would not now be stuck with rising global temperatures.”
An assumption for which the supporting facts are not evidence.
I meant to say “… not in evidence.”
There is also the reality that the CNRL CO2 EOR project at Weyburn, Sask has found the North Dakota pure oxygen coal combustion plant a more reliable supplier than the Boundary Dam atmospheric combustion plant.
The Allam power plant link is very interesting. Using pure oxygen methane combustion with CO2 as the working fluid could be more economic in any case.
It could also be easier to integrate with intermittent renewables. There’s no ‘head of steam’ to build, and with any surplus energy, large quantities of CO2 could be temporarily stored, or transported, as a solid, or possibly hydrogenated (back?) into a liquid fuel.
Probably, atmospheric CO2 emissions are purely a political problem and opportunity. But maybe there is also an economic opportunity. Maybe instead of trying to ‘capture’ CO2 at scale it shouldn’t be set free?
Yes, and that’s why we have to change the reality for business. Objectively, scientifically, more CO2 in the atmosphere is an absolute Good and less CO2 is bad, and even dangerous to life. Once and for all, let’s change this goddamned group think that has held sway since a self-interested and now corrupt academic and bureaucratic interest group has corrupted science for it’s own financial gain.
More CO2 in the atmosphere is good! 1000ppm is better than 415 ppm. Nothing needs to be done, nothing should be done to store CO2 below ground, where it’s benefits to plant life will be lost.
Shout it out, everyone!
That’s simply not a supportable statement.
400 ppm CO2 is clearly better than 180 ppmv. It’s not possible to say that 600 ppmv is better than 400. There’s no reason to think that 600-800 ppmv would be particularly harmful. Beyond 1,000 ppmv, it’s impossible to say. There are some laboratory experiments that indicate some marine calcifiers might have difficulty above 1,000 ppmv, particularly if the rise happened quickly. The potential problems aren’t so much with temperature as they are with marine geochemistry. Increasing CO2 decreases the saturation state of calcite and aragonite.
David
You said, “Increasing CO2 decreases the saturation state of calcite and aragonite.”
But, most of the alarm has been for coastal areas where the pH variation is a result of upwelling, 800-year old water. The claim for the minuscule change in open oceans is based on a model because the actual historical measurements are disregarded.
Tropical oceans have the salinity of their surface waters reduced from abundant rainfall, and the pH lowered from the slightly acidic rainwater. The intermediate-depth waters are most impacted by downwelling, cold waters in high latitudes.
I don’t think that we have good understanding of what the overall current impacts are, let alone future impacts.
I agree that we don’t have have a good understanding.
Respectfully, David, the history of the Earth’s biosphere gives us reason to think that 1000-2000 ppm is better than 400 ppm. What’s the null hypothesis here? The Cambrian explosion of life took place at much higher levels of CO2, and enabled plants to colonize land and to insert O2 into our atmosphere. That was good. The Carboniferous period saw a tremendous draw down of CO2. The plants of the Carboniferous period grew to be enormous and created all the coal we dig up now, some of which we burn to make electricity. Why do you think all that growth back then implies danger for living things today? The Null Hypothesis should be found in the balance between CO2 and O2 and in the health of plants in those early periods.
More evidence is available of a more recent nature. Commercial greenhouses routinely try to get their CO2 concentrations to 1200 ppm, and have difficulty keeping the CO2 at that high level because the plants naturally and greedily suck up the CO2 that is artificially pumped in. I think there is adequate reason to believe that CO2 at 1200 ppm does no harm to anyone, and it helps plants grow. If you agree with me that CO2 is a minor contributor to warming, and that the water cycle rules over climate, then 1200 is almost certainly better than 400.
I stand by my statement. I’m sorry you are so myopic on this point.
Because the marine calcifiers of the high-CO2 periods had adapted to seawater deficient in aragonite. And the past oscillations between high-Mg/aragonitic and low-Mg calcitic seas occurred over millions of years, not a few hundred.
Atmospheric CO2 has not been above 1,000 ppmv in an Icehouse world at any point in the Cenozoic Era.
Do I know >1,000 ppmv would be bad? No. I just know that a lot of things were different when CO2 was >1,000 ppmv. There is no way to know how the oceans would handle this sort of transition over a short period of time. If that transition can be spread out over a longer period of time, with very little economic impact, it makes sense to do so.
unfortunately, and with all due respect, his continued conflation of the business environment with actual reality suggests his myopic view is a matter of “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
Hear, hear!
There are close to 20 ways that CO2 cannot and does not warm the climate.
Thermodynamic scientists have been unable to make CO2 warm anything. Instead, it has proven to be the best of all coolants and is now being used in new skating rinks and the A/C in new model Mercedes Benz automobiles. Many skating rinks and refrigeration systems already use CO2 as the secondary coolant, used in this manner back to the 1800s. Now, they are making it the primary. It is truly about the cheapest and most environment-friendly refrigerant on the planet. Dupont, who makes much of our refrigerants is going to hate this development.
CO2’s absorption spectrum is pathetic, it can only absorb light equivalent to 800, 400, and -80ºC. During the day, it will absorb at only the high frequencies as CO2 in the atmosphere is already hotter than -80ºC and radiating and absorbing constantly. All CO2 will do is absorb and immediately re-emit this energy, thus, possibly slowing down solar radiation hitting the surface by a minuscule amount. In fact, as it will re-emit in random directions, CO2 will send some energy back to space, thus cooling the surface a tiny bit.
It is at night that CO2 emits only at -80ºC, sending it out to space and cooling the atmosphere. It is trying to being it down to -80ºC.
CO2 doesn’t warm anything. It retards radiative cooling.
Charles, please stop. You are acting as a sophomore. Every last thing you said was wrong.
The fact that you can use it as a refrigerant is irrelevant. You put refrigerant in a tube and constantly liquefy and vaporize it.
As for the rest, that’s not how radiation works. It was gobbledy goop. I truly don’t know where you learned about radiation, but it’s a lot simpler than what you are trying to say. Radiation doesn’t have a set temperature. Blackbody radiation just happens.
All gases absorb on a spectrum and them emit on a spectrum. A mix of gases will always absorb more than a single gas because their spectrums overlap. The increase of CO2 will absorb more because it is replacing completely saturated O2 with something not as saturated. Even if the amount is not much, it does happen. The absorbed energy is held, and then released as radiation in a random direction, including downwards. This has the effect of increasing the average heat at the bottom of the atmosphere by slowing the cooling of the surface.
Canada is also not shabby. The province of Ontario generates 61% of its electricity from nuclear. link Canada’s other big province, Quebec, generates 95% of its electricity from hydro.
Ontario, Saskatchewan, and New Brunswick are banding together to develop small modular reactors as their contribution to reducing CO2 in Canada. The licensing process is under way. link
And then there is Norway.
Norway is on the western slope of a mountain range, where there are steep inclines and a lot of precipitation, and a lot of that is stored in glaciers. As you would also find in British Columbia, for example. The land made the people and their society, in other words.
Or I could be wrong. If you think so, please point out any mostly flat or mostly dry place where human effort and political will have been able to overcome geography, in order to produce a bounty of carbon-free non-nuclear energy.
The Laurentian Plateau in northern Quebec is described as an area of low relief. It makes up in size for what it lacks in elevation though. SEBJ
Randy – British Columbia IS vertically ‘rich’ but they haven’t built much hydro-power because they are very politically correct and hate the thought of potentially affecting ecology (and the best mountains are a long way from population centers – therefore long transmission lines.
Just pointing out that ‘geography’ is the main answer to why BC is mostly hydro electricity, and Alberta is mostly Gas and Coal.
The only ‘carbon free’ way Alberta will generate enough electricity, is nuclear. Even if we have to bring it in from Saskatchewan.
“Here’s the nub of the problem. Fossil fuels deliver a range of important services to humanity, which have historically been responsible for the unprecedented levels of wealth and prosperity we are enjoying today. So the challenge before us is to find carbon-neutral alternatives for all these services, which deliver all the benefits but not the costs.”
No. The nub of the problem is that there is an unverified conjecture that CO2 is causing the planet to warm dangerously. We have no reliable data about the temperature of the planet and the evidence that exists tends to contradict this proposition. The increases in CO2 are, as far as we can judge from the science, wholly beneficial.
That “unverified conjecture” is accepted by every regulatory agency and scientific department in the US Federal government and most state governments and it forms the basis of regulatory and tax policies.
The Trump adminstration has wisely downsized the impact on US businesses, but it hasn’t erased it. I don’t share the author’s opinion that finding carbon-neutral alternatives is an urgent priority; although I do support economically viable methods of lowering the trajectory. That said, neither his opinion, nor mine, nor yours alters the regulatory environment businesses have to operate within. Ultimately, the only way to alter that reality, is through the ballot box.
I agree entirely. But they might as well demonize Argon. At least that would do no harm.
“That “unverified conjecture” is accepted by every regulatory agency and scientific department in the US Federal government and most state governments and it forms the basis of regulatory and tax policies.”
You are not defending this travesty of human/scientific thought are you, David? You have me a little confused. Millions of people CAN be wrong, you know.
Human-caused climate change IS an unverified conjecture. Of that, there is no doubt. Wouldn’t you agree? Despite what anyone else, regardless of postion in society, might say about it?
If the issue were really about science, the issue would have been settled long ago.
The only sanity will return is when renewable energy disasters in guinea pig jurisdictions make their non-viability obvious even to autistic teenagers. Until then, we’re fighting a rear guard action.
Since David has not answered you yet, Tom, I will attempt to answer for him. No, he is not defending the regulations. He is simply saying that they exist and that companies must adhere to them if they want to do business. That is the reality.
I believe that David is being pragmatic, while many here would prefer that he act like the warmists and ignore reality to promote the cause, based on their comments. He is also being pragmatic when he says to vote for more politicians like Donald Trump, if you want things to change for the better. I could not agree more.
Yep. The only way I can attack the regulations is by voting. However, in the Gulf of Mexico, we do try very hard to work with the regulators (BOEM & BSEE) to comply in the manner least disruptive to exploring for and producing oil & gas. A good relationship with regulatory agencies makes compliance easier.
It’s just reality. My opinion about the veracity of the science is irrelevant to what the laws, regulations and tax codes are. Nor is my opinion of the science relevant to how business has to be conducted under the laws, regulations and tax codes.
No, David that’s not “just reality” that’s just the business environment that businesses have to deal with. It’s not (physical) reality in the slightest. “CO2 being a danger” or not is a matter of physical reality. That physical reality doesn’t change regardless of what asinine ideas man comes up with to regulate business. The two are two separate things no matter how much you wish to conflate the two.
The physical reality is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It helps retard radiative cooling. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 will cause the bulk temperature of the atmosphere to rise by about 1 to 1.5 K. Atmospheric CO2 has risen from about 280 ppmv in the 18th century to about 400 ppmv today. Humans are responsible for at least some of the rise. The doubling of 280 ppmv will probably occur late in the 21st century. While the degree to which humans are responsible for the rise and the climate sensitivity are estimates with wide error bars, there is no actual science that contradicts this. I don’t think that’s a problem… My opinion doesn’t matter.
Due to that physical reality, democratically elected governments at various levels have decided to limit and or reward the reduction of CO2 emissions. Businesses have to operate within that reality,
Due to that physical reality
Bzzzt Wrong. Due to the unfounded claims of catastrophy, for which there is no evidence in the physical reality.
What businesses have to do with the bounds of the law still does not change physical reality. Stop conflating the two.
The catastrophic claims are totally bogus… But that’s also irrelevant to reality.
Indeed they are irrelevant to reality (that’s the point) even though they are highly relevant to the “laws” you keep bleating on about. reality doesn’t care about bogus catastrophe claims or the bogus laws built on those bogus catastrophe claims. Learn to separate the two.
Good fracking grief! This is not a difficult concept. The laws and regulations are reality. Climate change theories, ranging from more atmospheric CO2 being entirely beneficial to AOC-style doomsday are totally irrelevant to what the laws and regulations are.
Good fracking grief yourself, David.
The laws and regulations are reality
they are not *PHYSICAL* reality. CO2 being dangerous or not is a physical reality question. period. You are talking a completely different topic, namely LAW and it’s effect on businesses. Physical reality doesn’t know or care about the law. It simply doesn’t matter to physical reality. at all.
The laws and regulations are reality
The law can say anything it wants, even if it contradicts the real physical world. That is not *reality* that is *legality*.
Climate change theories, ranging from more atmospheric CO2 being entirely beneficial to AOC-style doomsday are totally irrelevant to what the laws and regulations are.
Quite the opposite, as the laws you keep bleating on about are based on or distorted by those theories. what those theories are irrelevant to is the **ACTUAL PHYSICAL REALITY**. Physical reality can’t be and does not change because a theory about it changes. Laws can be changed when the theories that were their basis change.
Get your head out of your frack-hole and learn the difference between law and physical reality, it’s not a difficult concept despite your seeming inability to grasp it.
“By unravelling Nature’s mysteries we gained mastery over her”
And eventually fired nature and god and took charge of the planet as its master, its operator, its protecter, and its keeper. We are now in charge of nature.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2010/05/16/171/
Not sure I agree. George Carlin skipped the soft compromises and drove full speed any BS he saw on his way. I think the article has many good points, but there are some fundamental obstacles, that largely convince the skeptic. The problem is facts versus feelings. The feelings are so overwhelmingly dictated by the bad image CO₂ have gotten. To explain what I think the article is up against, I wrote the following little peace, in the hope it is not too long:
——-
A counter to Maarten Boudry’s “False Humility Will Not Save the Planet”
Hope To Defy Absolutism and Continuation To Freedom
We the people should do all we can to do good for our selves, our future and the nature around us. We should strive to intelligently live in harmony with each other and wisely pave our way into an era of understanding, peace, prosperity and civilized symbioses.
In the hope that this may be Your objective too, we should stop anger each other, name calling and demonizing the air we breath out.
Personally I love the civilization in which I was brought up. In may case it was Denmark, a small kingdom by the sea, as Edgar Allan Poe expressed it. Because I enjoyed my inherited civilization so much, it has been an even greater satisfaction to encounter first hand so many other ways of life around the world. Different cultures have different highlights of beauty, art, science and worships of life.
Diverse opinions, culture and politics should be treated as a blessing. There is such an enrichment and education in listening with an open mind, to voices other than your own. I believe the ability to understand other cultures and opinions with an open and bright mind, is what truly lifts the human race into further prosperity and happiness.
The last sixty years has been amazing in so may ways, mainly helped by the industrial revolution and it’s byproducts. The industrial revolution, which entails the successful utilization of highly concentrated energy sources like coal, oil, gas, hydro and nuclear, has freed the common people from just serving their masters and their daily survival, to now be able to pursue art, culture, wisdom, longer happier more secure lives and the ability to ensure way better food supply to all regions of the world.
One of the beautiful side effects of the industrial revolution is of cause the contribution of CO₂ (carbon dioxide) resulting in a greener Earth. Mainly due to CO₂ enrichment the Earth greened some 30% over the last 50 years according to NASA. Incidentally we also have had the luck of continuously recovering from the Little Ice Age. This recovery has increased the general average temperatures at mid latitudes a bit, enough to also contribute significantly to the CO₂ greening, thus increasing the trace gas of life from 0.03% to 0.04%.
Another good side effect of the concentrated energy use, is the saving on trees, way more productive farming and in the past fifty years lesser and lesser air pollution. Given a few decades more in the same direction, I am confident we will get to grips with daily waste products. I believe so because the more prosperous a nation is, the more it’s people can and will do to clean up their garbage.
I am hopeful that our culture and prosperity will not fall into absolutism with the elite tending to dictate the press and and the politicians, but to continue the industrial revolution with ever higher energy flux utilization, a trend that has been so wonderful and given so much liberty.
Thanks Riis.
The Pope, not once, mentioned rain in his ecological encyclical – even though the Bible has many interesting comments about rain – nor does Boudry. After sunlight, rain is probably the next most important factor when it comes to climate. Perhaps the Pope and Boudry would both benefit from reading the exquisite poetry of Job 38 and ponder what this is all saying?
I think Job 38 can be simplified to King Canute’s demonstration on the beach, that even he the king was not in charge of the forces of nature (or the tide for that matter) 🙂
It is a different matter with Greens and the contemporary pope though. /SARC
“Drying the Sky” which has just been posted raised some important issues. It is good to study the factors relating to climate and weather. This posting confirms how little we still know and how much we still need to grapple with. It is ludicrous to claim that the science is settled or think that we can engineer climate. Some view Canute as an eejit but he was spot on with his visual demonstration. We need many modern Canutes. 🙂
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/07/drying-the-sky/
“Alas, despite huge investments in solar and wind, both energy sources jointly account for about one percent of global energy production. We can expect their share to grow in the coming years and decades, but eventually the technology will run up against the laws of physics. ”
Huge investments in solar and wind are the laws of economics enabling government control of energy production. Exelon bills itself as the nation’s largest energy provider. In Illinois, it looks as though they will soon abandon nuclear all together because of the advantages of subsidies and mandates in wind and disadvantages of the same in nuclear. Nuclear is now a small portion of their business while the state looks to emphasize wind – the growing part of their portfolio – at ever increasing levels. Further, the state is looking to remove a recent law that gave subsidies to keep two nuclear plants operational while embarking on a large expansion of natural gas back-up. (The governor maintains his opposition to fracking though.) Even people working at the nuclear sites expect Exelon’s stock price to go up as they decrease nuclear and note that the company has decreased support of this sector to the point of affecting the maintenance of work forces at its nuclear facilities. That is a cycle potentially headed to disaster and ensuring the long term demise of the industry.
We will run up against the laws of physics in more dramatic ways as time goes on, but the governors, virtue signalers, propagandists and profiteers will see to it that it will cost us a whole lot more for a whole lot of unnecessary effort and elitist control.
“False humility” is not MEANT to save the planet. It is meant to save the “self-esteem” (another vague, prideful term) of people who flunked high school chemistry, didn’t bother with physics, and don’t care about science at all, except to use cherry-picked data as a pretext for political polemics.
Politicizing the weather was NEVER a good idea. “Vote for ME and future generations will enjoy better weather. . . or the climate will get less worse slower, or something. . .”
However, there have been plenty of ideas over the ages that were lousy ideas from the get-go, yet have more lives than cats.
The “False Humility Will Not Save The Planet” portion very much made me thing of Romans 1: “18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen”
God also instructed mankind to “go and multiply”, with our purpose being to glorify God. We are to be good stewards of God’s creation, but we ARE NOT to glorify and worship the creation. God hates idol worship. We are to glorify the Creator. BTW – hydrocarbons that mankind pulls out of the ground were also created by God, perhaps with His intended purpose for mankind to use it to go and multiply; and we have. Mankind corrupted all creation at “the fall”, but God, The Father, sent His God Son, Jesus (The Christ; Messiah), to die and raise from the dead, so that mankind, and creation, could be reconciled back to God. “We” screwed it up, Jesus puts it right again.
In summary, the Romans verses tell us that everything is all about God. We are nothing without God – Jesus.
Guilt will set it all right.
As far as I can tell, the only economic use for CCUS is to enhance oil production. I love the irony.
Greg, lost in the “best-of- both- worlds” joy of our ability to store anthropo carbon and turn a profit, is the fact we are producing more carbon with it! Surely the carbon capture activists would prefer leaving the oil in the ground. For me, I like more CO2 in the atmosphere and so do the plants and animals.
It’s as ironic as it gets.
Sure, if we had left all those fossilized remains of ancient animals and plants under the ground
Because we still believe the Biblical story that the only way to create hydrocarbons is by applying heat and pressure to dead animals and plants. There must have been a lot of “ancient animals and plants” on Titan to generate its methane lakes. Oh, wait.
Methane isn’t oil… and oil doesn’t come from animals & plants… unless you count algae and plankton as animals & plants.
Methane is a hydrocarbon. Petroleum (oil) is simply long chain hydrocarbons. Those hydrocarbons on Titan didn’t come from dinosaurs.
Oil isn’t even chemically close to methane, nor did it come from dinosaurs. Irrespective of the Sinclair gas station signs, it has never been thought that oil came from dinosaurs.
You might want to tell that to some (retired?) school teachers. Blame Sinclair all you want but most people who believe the myth that oil comes from dinosaurs most likely (As you are no doubt aware) learned it in grade school science class way, way back in their formative years.
I’m not blaming Sinclair. I’m joking about it. From what I recall, petroleum geology wasn’t taught in grade school during my formative years.
Not exactly a Biblical story, although my schooling was a while ago, and the textbooks were out of date even then, they didn’t fully understand which hydrocarbons’ origin was just heat and pressure. And like the origin of the moon, it’s not an entirely settled question.
Some don’t understand that back when the Earth was as hot as Venus, Earth’s oceans were the atmosphere. It can’t happen again, any more than leaving your door open will heat the whole town. As long as there is a lot of liquid water, Earth would again cool down as the atmospheric heat pump ran.
If one is to use the argument that “all the carbon that we could possibly burn was once in the atmosphere and we’re fine so it can’t possibly be a problem”, finding out that hydrocarbons made up a lot of the Earth as it was formed, and have a geologic origin, might somewhat undermine one’s position, but not enough to start panicking that the Earth is on fire.
I’m of the position that, while the fossil fuel supply is essentially limitless for the next several hundred years, that might leave future generations a bit short.
All life on earth is dependent on CO2 directly or indirectly, no?
I did some work on the outside of a new building and had no idea what they were making but guessed and asked the owner if they were growing marijuana inside. He said yes. I asked him if he pumped in CO2 for the plants to grow, he said, absolutely. I think there are many farmers who use this method to produce good growth in their greenhouses.
So I say the planet can handle as much CO2 we can throw at it.. I am against the air pollution coming from 3rd world countries that burn fossil fuels without proper scrubbing of the exhaust. CO2 is not a pollutant, its a fertilizer. The more CO2 the greener the earth, the more trees grow, the more they can produce oxygen.. Its a symbiotic relationship, duh…….
If you look at creation all around us it screams it all had a superior designer. Look at a flower, I have some Orchids growing in the house and am amazed at the beauty and perfection of each flower.. It is perfect it needs nothing to improve on it. Everything is operating the way it was designed, except for mankind. We need to be fixed..
Romans 1:20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made,w even his eternal powerx and Godship,y so that they are inexcusable.
Now in 1007 languages
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/g201412/the-earth/
“If you look at creation all around us it screams it all had a superior designer.”
Really? Doesn’t scream that at all to me.
Personally, I think that to promote any scheme involving “carbon capture” or “carbon utilization” based on monetary profit is no better than Al Gore making millions off of the CAGW scam.
If either of what I put in quotes can produce a genuine benefit worth the effort (not just a profit), OK. (The benefits “dry ice” has contributed to society? Without Government “incentives”?)
I remember someone once saying that the best way to preserve an “endangered” species is to make a market for them.
The best way for GNDer’s to promote their insane ideas is to make an artificial market for their “solutions”.
“Personally, I think that to promote any scheme involving “carbon capture” or “carbon utilization” based on monetary profit is no better than Al Gore making millions off of the CAGW scam.”
Then you misunderstand what money and currency are, and what a profit represents (in a free society).
OT question for Dave Middleton:
Hey Dave,
You may have noted the huge price spike in shares of Apache Corp, attributed to news of a “significant oil discovery”, for that company, along with Total S.A., off the coast of Surinam.
Despite at least one market analyst declaring that the discovery was off the west coast of Africa, the last time I checked Surinam was sandwiched between Guyana and French Guyana in South America.
I was wondering if this field could be considered an offshore extension of the Orinoco Belt, and also wondering if you had any info on the geology of the find?
How deep is the oil? How much water is above it? What is the age of the formation(s) being tapped?
Any info would be appreciated, if you do not mind an off topic question here?
Thanks in advance.
-Nick M
I’d have to look it up.
If it is interesting to you, perhaps you will find the time.
It has been reported that this region is one of if not the hotspot in the world of oil exploration.
I was wondering if these areas have the source regions originating as a result of the rifting which caused the separation of Africa and South America?
From what I have read about the pre-salt play offshore Brazil, the source rocks are lucustrine shale formations that were deposited in a rift lake system after Africa and South America began to separate.
“To date, commercial CO2 EOR has been applied almost exclusively to conventional oil reservoirs. Unconventional reservoirs, including tight oil systems such as the Bakken in North Dakota or residual oil zones, offer considerable increased potential to use CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, subject to developing the appropriate advancements in technology.”
Somehow, I don’t think this is what the commie/watermelons, the grant seeking scientists, the renewables scam artists, the Malthusians and the rich, elite, billionaire would-be rulers of the world had in mind when they chose CO2 as the perfect vehicle for enforced penance by Mankind for His sins against Mother Earth and for Man’s salvation and redemption and, of course, their NWO. I am betting they didn’t count on human ingenuity to figure out how to be “virtuous” by taking human produced CO2 and using it to get more oil.
In addition, and correct me if I’m wrong but, it seems that if it can be done for coal plants, too, then the cheapest and most abundant source of the world’s energy, coal, could be virtuously removed and used to affordably provide electricity to the developing world which desperately needs it and get these nutters who want them to leave their vast resources of coal in the ground, stay poor and die young but live in imagined harmony with Earth like the caveman did, no excuses for denying them a means out of abject poverty–24/7 reliable electricity. If the CO2 can be captured, the greenie imperialists lose their hammer, no?
It could, also, save the jobs of US coal miners which are something that, for some reason, the Lefties seem determined to eliminate and are gleeful about doing. See Hillary laughing hysterically after promising to put them out of work when she became President and the crowd cheering. I’m old enough to remember when the Democrat Party was for the working man. I can’t pinpoint exactly when that changed, but they now hate and disdain the laborer. Imagine laughing and cheering about putting thousands of people out of work. Who does that?
CO2 is not a problem. It has been way higher and the world did not catch on fire and Life thrived. It seems this has the potential to destroy the reasons the CO2/AGW hoax was created. Now, if true, that is something I can support enthusiastically!
The funny thing is that one of the commie-est watermelons, Sen, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) supports the 45Q tax credit.
Most likely because RI derives much benefit from it, would be my guess. the only green watermelons like Sheldon are really for is the green of the almighty dollar.
I Sheldon is just a Marxist moron.
David Middleton, good lessons on the difference between natural vs. human laws:
– neglecting nature’s laws, e.g. gravity, mostly leads to sever body damages.
– neglecting human laws can lead to severe body damages; when detected the neglecting of human laws leads to financial losses. Anyhow undetected by law enforcement it’s called “Corruption”.