Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/06/2021 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    Ah, the nutter response... Dear genius and WHERE exactly will said vehicles get their power from? Hrmm? Where will all the HOMES get their HEAT from hrmm? WHERE will all the industrial process plants get their HEAT value from? Hrmm? It ain't Uranium/Thorium as they refuse to build modern nuclear plants. It ain't solar as Europe has no sun for at least half the year. It ain't pumped hydro as they are not opening gargantuan concrete industrial sites to produce the portland cement for all the gargantuan dams required nor are they displacing millions of people out of Switzerland to build said lakes from There is no viable battery technology unless you play pretend that one can pay $1 or higher for a kWh and still have a modern society. Europe does not have the biomass to do so, they are maxed and already importing trees from other nations... Leaves Wind, which in summer time does not blow and in the dead of winter also does not BLOW.... Great all they have to do is build 6X capacity factor of wind turbines which will cover ~ 9 months of the year...
  2. 5 points
    The undisclosed tools are long ago known. Nopec Act is since about 2008 known. The problem for the US no more Oil from Opec and Countries like Saudi Arabia would withdraw Billions of USD. Such a Law would send a huge Price Spike across the US.
  3. 4 points
    At least back then, US people paid the least amount of tax compares to Europe (The first federal income tax in the US was introduced in Civil war). And people could vote in these countries compared to the Tsar in Russia (Although I prefer the White Army than the Red Army, as Communism/Socialism would only bring up the equality flag until they got into power). In a democracy system, if a large portion voters were deceived and chose poorly, then the whole country deserved the outcomes instead of having no vote for the system but pay the ultimate price from the failed decisions of a few. By being tricked this time and pay the price, people will learn a lesson for next time. After the Cold War, many US people could not catch up with the fast changing environment when lots of manual jobs are outsourced to developing countries, or automations took over while many other invested their education in STEM and constantly learn to catch up with fast changing technology. If a youngster over enjoy his youth and waste time not preparing for future career, naturally he will lack behind those who face constant headache and challenge to learn STEM/trading skills. Secondly the gap between wealth from older generation who were lucky enough to have booming economics time, less complicated labor jobs and high pay, lots of accumulate wealth but pay less income tax in retirement with the youngsters who pay more tax yearly and in student loan debt (many of the student debts are for art and entertainment degrees rather than STEM degrees), lower wages, higher insurance premium... which make wealth accumulation harder. These are the two main factors that currently divide the US. I don't like the entitlement of people who was jealous with older generation. It is no body's fault to be born in a good time and enjoy or to be born in a bad time and endure, like the Lost Generation and the Greatest Generation. I also don't like the attitude of people who have an entertaining non practical college degrees to justify they are educated and complain for inequality with people who constantly get headache with STEM and keep up with tech. I also don't like the people who complains skilled migrants took their jobs. At the end of the day, they were born in a top country, speak English as a native language, have early access to top technology so they have way for head start comparing to most of skilled migrants for the skilled jobs competition. They always have a choice, and no one is responsible for their choice but themselves. People should do your best to create their own wealth, if they are able to work, no matter of their situation and not expecting from government taking from someone else and assign them to them. If they expect getting more from the country than what they contributed, they have an entitlement problem, regardless of skin colors. Lots of innovation came from the US, and 80% of billionaires in US are self made is a strong evidence US people enjoy a high level of freedom. No country can archive these statistics in a slavery/entitlement society. However the political will in ESG/Green New Deal with heavy subsidies and tax credit is a recipe for mal investments. If innovation can come from political determination, leading innovations would have come from China, not the US. US people are lucky enough to be born free and they can have a choice to stay free by learning hard and working hard or giving up their freedom, stay relaxed, own nothing and be happy (In many country, that choice is simply a luxury dream). I may relax and give up my freedom someday, who knows, but I know that I would be thankful and not feel jealous or entitled to anything.
  4. 4 points
    There is no need to convince anyone that the official measure of CPI is said to have not much to do with the realities in which most US citizens live. As far as possible the official CPI is undercut. This can be seen, for example, on the basis of ShadowStats data, where CPI inflation is shown, but still measured with the methodology adopted in 1980. Today's + 6.2% are actually levels closer to 15%, according to ShadowStats, whose methodology has however, also been heavily criticized for the lack of detailed empirical research and an arbitrarily adopted correction factor. Every goverment do this in more or less elegant way so I dont mean to attack USA specifically.
  5. 4 points
    WATCH THIS 5 minute VIDEO The IPCC deliberately changes the data (again). It is criminal. Polar Bears Granted 70 Year Reprieve https://odysee.com/@TonyHeller:c/polar-bears-granted-70-year-reprieve:a
  6. 4 points
    The European impact is not big. About 10 Bio m3 go to Spain from Algeria and 8 Bio m3 go direct to Spain. Another 10 Bio go to Italy. At the moment only those 10 Bio m3 accros Morocco is the issue. There are enough Alternatives for Spain. In The midterm Spain should expand their Pipelines in size up to 25 Bio m3. Gazprom average level. Gazprom by the way belongs 49% of the Algeria National Gas Companie.
  7. 4 points
    The Russian policy has always been in favor of long-term contracts, and so was everybody else's who is selling actual gas, as opposed to speculating on gas futures, err "investing in commodities"
  8. 3 points
    The Chinese have stated for 60 years, to achieve world peace and prosperity, the world must choose a win-win strategy. Win-win is not war. Only Americans label everything as a war. The only people who use war as their primary tool is the Americans. Only the Americans float their navy into so-called international waters, waters that would otherwise be free from military threats. Only the Americans bomb, invade, and sanction other countries, killing untold millions, and stating the murder of 500,000 children "was worth it". In prior posts, ronwagn has declared he is favour of the American war efforts.
  9. 3 points
    Sugar cane bagasse is only ever burned in/at dedicated facilities at the sugar cane mills. It's not suitable for general purpose use. the biggest problem is not silicates, or gumming up burners, but the fact that it's energy density is very low - similar to the debris left behind at a paper mill. However if you already have a mill, then the stuff piles up pretty quickly, and it would be foolish not to use it where it's already 'lying around' for free. The market for 'human consumption' of ethanol is tiny compared to the fuel market. It sells at a higher price, since it has to be safe and tasty to drink, but there simply isn't enough demand to make it worthwhile.
  10. 3 points
    EXCERPT - Line 5 is part of a network of oil pipes which move approximately 540,000 barrels per day from western Canada to Escanaba, Michigan. https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/biden-targets-another-us-pipeline-shutdown-after-begging-saudis-more-oil SHORT TWITTER VIDEOS in article Biden Targets Another US Pipeline For Shutdown After 'Begging' Saudis For More Oil by Tyler Durden Monday, Nov 08, 2021 - 12:10 PM Despite approval ratings in the toilet, President Biden and his administration are reportedly exploring the closure of yet another pipeline in a bid to shift the US away from fossil fuels and appease environmental activists. The move - shutting down the Line 5 pipeline which links Superior, WI to Sarnia, Ontario, would cost tens of thousands of US jobs, billions of dollars in economic activity, and further exacerbate energy shortages and price increases hitting lower-income Americans the hardest, according to a Thursday letter from 13 House Republicans led by Rep. Bob Latta According to the letter, the closure would affect workers across "Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the region," and would place the environment at greater risk "due to additional trucks operating on roadways carrying hazardous materials." Line 5 is part of a network of oil pipes which move approximately 540,000 barrels per day from western Canada to Escanaba, Michigan. "Furthermore, as we enter the winter months and temperatures drop across the Midwest, the termination of Line 5 will undoubtedly further exacerbate shortages and price increases in home heating fuels like natural gas and propane at a time when Americans are already facing rapidly rising energy prices, steep home heating costs, global supply shortages, and skyrocketing gas prices." This comes less than two weeks after the White House begged OPEC to increase oil production amid 'supply issues' and soaring energy prices. It also comes after a weekend which started out with US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm scoffing at the notion of increasing domestic oil production... ...and ended on Sunday with her warning that Americans should expect to pay higher costs to heat their homes this winter - telling CNN's "State of the Union": "This is going to happen. It will be -- it will be more expensive this year than last year," adding "We are in a slightly beneficial position, well certainly relative to Europe, because their choke hold of natural gas is very significant. ... But we have the same problem in fuels that the supply chains have, which is that the oil and gas companies are not flipping the switch as quickly as the demand requires." According to Jason Hayes, director of environmental policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Biden's energy policies and potentially shutting down Line 5, is "just one more example of being divorced from reality." "They're planning to power an industrial nation like the United States on solar panels and wind turbines," Hayes told Fox News. "I hope it doesn't end like this, but where I see it going is unfortunately the same thing that happened in February in Texas: People freezing in their homes," he continued. "Most of the time when it's extremely cold or there's a real bad polar vortex situation, typically it's pretty cloudy and there's not a lot of wind." Environmental groups and Native Amerian tribes, meanwhile, claim that a potential oil spill from the 70-year-old pipeline could devastate the Great Lakes and Michigan's coastal economies. "Given the strength and oscillation of the currents, over 700 miles of Lake Michigan and Huron shoreline would face serious contamination" in the event of a spill, wrote a group of 12 tribal nations in a Nov. 4 letter to Biden. "In contrast to Canada’s vocal support of [pipeline owner] Enbridge, and despite what we understand to be the Governor’s requests for help, your Administration has thus far been silent regarding Line 5." As Politico notes: All this means that Biden, who promised at the COP26 climate talks that the United States would be “hopefully leading by the power of our example,” is facing the sort of cold, hard political decision that such grand climate ambitions can force on a country that is the world's top oil and gas producer, said Kevin Book, managing director at energy consulting firm ClearView Energy: Either keep the pipeline in place and disappoint progressives, or revoke its permit and hand Republicans fresh ammunition just after they shellacked Democrats in Virginia and other state elections. "When fuel prices are high, it may not matter what project gets stopped so much as the White House is seen stopping it," said Bock. "Politically speaking, anything that could get in the way of the propane supply ahead of winter could play badly in Midwestern swing states." Do they even care at this point?
  11. 3 points
    There's a new oil sheriff in town called the IP man of oil. The IP man of oil customizes your behavioral preferences to oil, and fools you into thinking that the oil industry is a an industry of natural resources, when in fact it utilizes highly skilled human resources, including engineers and heavy machinery. Labor differentials are focused on trading activities taking advantages of spikes, fluctuations and betting, mostly against oil.
  12. 3 points
    My microbiology prof likes to go on about schemes like this. Reality is that microbial processes will never be commercialized because of scale and efficiency issues. Few exceptions include ethanol production. Nitrogen fixation by microbes has been all the rage in this field, but the industrial routes already beat the race to the practical efficiency limit. The same applies for organic synthesis.
  13. 3 points
    Yes but they are in the same time zone and not as high quality. The Atacama desert is as close to 360 days a year in full sunshine as you can get. It is 20 degrees from the equator compared to 30+degrees for Tibet and 40+ Xinjang. Chile is 10 time zones ahead and as any one who has experience in electric power dispatching that is like having 10 hours of free battery storage plus an extra 20% output.
  14. 3 points
    Serves you right for claiming to be the free ones. May I quote “In England, America, France, Germany the malicious nature of the governments is disguised so masterfully, that the people of these nations, pointing at Russia, are naively convinced that all the events taking place in Russia are unique to it, wherefore they are enjoying the ultimate freedom and their conditions don’t need improvement. That makes them the most hopeless sort of slaves - the slaves who don’t realize that they are slaves and are proud of their slavery”. Leo Tolstoy, 1905
  15. 3 points
    The hate is from the left. Waukegan is only the latest example. Check Chicago shootings every weekend. Check who runs Chicago and how many criminals they fail to prosecute.
  16. 3 points
    Capitalism is earning money by serving the public with your products and services in ethical exchanges with neither side taking advantage of the other. Evil people will do evil in any system if they are allowed to do it without exposure and repercussions. Mao, Stalin, Castro etc. etc. have shown how socialism AKA communism harms and kills millions.
  17. 3 points
    No, wokester mouth breather, it's based on an exchange between two parties. Prices are supposed to be based on supply and demand. In your retarded far left liberal world, government is more important than citizens, environment and the economy. The same government that games the free market for its corporatism supporting, producing nothing, and ruin the citizen's rights mega-company donors. You're too stupid to insult.
  18. 3 points
    It may sound anti-Western, but it is really funny to see the appeal to developing countries by Biden administration when US is at the forefront of oil consumers. January 2020 data, CIA World Factbook. 1000 Americans consume 60.02 bbl / day per day, 1000 Chinese 7 bbl, and 1000 Indians just 2.64 bbl. Please draw your own conclusions. If we had 100 milion barrels ad 8 bilion peple it mean average 1000 people use 12,5 bbl So addition Indian oil demand only to just world average oil consumption looks like 17 additional MILIONS BARRELS per day. Chinese only to world average means 7 milion barrels more. Dont forget Africa they would also like to have a car or at least motorbike.,
  19. 3 points
    MP - I didn't see a story attached but are you being serious.. try $200 billion, or maybe $2 trillion.. there have been proposals to link renewable energy projects in Northern Australia to Singapore which is a fraction of the distance and the headline cost on that project is $A16 billion ($US11.6 billion) .. there are plenty of sub sea power cables but the distance from China to Chile is many times any distance attempted so far and would cross some very deep ocean indeed..
  20. 3 points
    Argentina makes no sense since it is on the wrong side of the Andes and the solar resource in Argentina is pretty weak.
  21. 3 points
    Learn all the nitty-gritty details of the $130 trillion climate finance swindle in this extremely well-referenced article by James Corbett. James Corbett produced those wonderful documentaries "How and Why Big Oil Conquered the World" and "Who is Bill Gates". https://www.corbettreport.com/welcome-to-the-new-economy/ https://www.minds.com/CorbettReport/blog/welcome-to-the-new-economy-1306770198593802244 Welcome to the New Economy Corbett Report Nov 14, 2021, 5:58:13 PM We are plunging headlong into the greatest economic transition in history. We don't have to speculate about that, either. Back in 2015, Christina Figueres—then the UN's top climate change official—straight up told us that this was the end goal of the Great Resetters and their climate change cult: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history. This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally—within a defined period of time—[attempting] to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution." Other than Patrick Wood (and The Corbett Report, of course), few noted or wondered at these words. Surely it was just more hot air from the bumbling bloviators at climate alarmism headquarters, right? Fast forward to 2021 and we can listen to Prince Charles repeating this threat to transform the global economy in even stronger terms. Pivoting from the COVID scaremongering to climate scaremongering (exactly as predicted), His Royal Lowness warned that the "existential threat" of climate change would require that countries not only transform their economies but put themselves on a "war-like footing" and mount a "military-style campaign" against ManBearPig: "Here we need a vast military-style campaign to marshal the strength of the global private sector. With trillions at its disposal, far beyond global GDP and with the greatest respect beyond even the governments of the world’s leaders, it offers the only real prospect of achieving fundamental economic transition." I know people would like to close their eyes, let the normalcy bias kick in, and pretend that these are just empty rhetorical statements. It's true: Christina Figueres and Prince Charles, individually, run nothing. The world does not run on their pronouncements. But for the last several years, and with increasing intensity in recent months, the people who do control the world of international finance have begun constructing the web of organizations, instruments and mechanisms for accomplishing this "fundamental economic transition." And, sadly, not one person in a thousand is paying attention to this complete overhaul of international finance. Let's rectify that right now, shall we? The Background I hope that you've figured out the climate swindle by now, but if not, here it is in a nutshell: The UN, the WEF and the international banking oligarchy are not trying to save Mother Earth, nor are they going to protect you from the weather gods. As anyone who has been paying attention should know by now, they are simply using your healthy, natural concern for the environment as a handy tool to manipulate you into supporting their political agenda. If you have bought into the climate change hype and you think that man-made CO2 is the magical thermostat that is dialing the "global average temperature" (whatever that means) up or down, fine... . . . I mean, you're wrong, of course. In reality, the climategate criminals are using unfalsifiable pseudoscience to deceive you into joining their cargo cult. They are manipulating the temperature record to cool the past and warm the present. They are relying on flawed models and lying with statistics to trick you into believing their sky-is-falling narrative. And they are making ridiculous alarmist predictions about the coming climate apocalypse, all the while openly admitting that their movement has nothing to do with environmental protection and everything to do with economics. Worse yet, they have convinced their cult of true believers that anyone who questions these lies (like yours truly) is a shill for Big Oil and doesn't care about the environment. The truth, of course, is that—as I've been at pains to explain in my work over and over and over—it is the big oil billionaires and their bankster cronies who are steering this greenwashing agenda and misdirecting the public away from the REAL environmental problems that the billionaires themselves are causing, hindering real environmental science in the process. . . . But fine. I get it. You care about protecting the natural environment and you've been convinced that Al Gore and his cadre of climategate companions are super cereal about the existential threat of carbon dioxide. OK. Regardless of your position on manmade global warming, one thing that everyone needs to understand is that the banksters and the international oligarchs of the superclass are not pushing the climate change threat because they care about Mother Earth. They are cynically using this scare to achieve their century-old quest to implement a technocratic system of total control over our daily lives. This is leading toward the carbon ration system where every single action you take, every transaction you undertake and every move you make will be measured for its "carbon footprint" (or "carbon foodprint") and reduced as necessary at the whim of the technocrats. And, oh yeah, by the way, these same would-be technocratic controllers are constructing an entire international financial and banking structure to consolidate control of the earth in their hands. Almost forgot that part. Of course, if you've been following my work on the climate finance front over the years you'll already know all about the $100 trillion climate swindle, namely: that Enron and Goldman Sachs pioneered the emissions trading swindles, which (surprise, surprise!) are a complete and total fraud from top to bottom; that General Electric, DuPont, Johnson & Johnson, Pepsi, Siemens, AIG and a host of other Fortune 500/CFR companies joined BP, ConocoPhillips, GM and a host of other oiligarch companies as founding members of the US Climate Action Partnership, whose “Blueprint for Legislative Action” became the backbone of the Wall Street-backed Waxman-Markey bill of 2009; that former Bank of England governor, current United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance and all-round globalist insider Mark Carney delivered a speech in 2019 declaring that an entirely new (digital, of course) financial system was going to be needed to help transition the world to a net zero carbon economy; that the Rothschilds and their bankster pals have been quietly laying the financial groundwork for the creation of an entire climate banking system to facilitate their debt-for-nature swaps and other attempts to monopolize the world in the name of "sustainable development" And you'll know about the the Global Environment Facility (GEF), which bills itself as "the largest multilateral trust fund focused on enabling developing countries to invest in nature" and boasts of its support in cofinancing over $117 billion in climate change and biodiversity programs. You'll also know that the GEF was envisioned as a "World Conservation Bank" and was launched by Edmund de Rothschild at a "World Wilderness Congress" where other speakers complained about "the cannon fodder, unfortunately, that populates the earth." But what you might not know (because I haven't covered it until now) is that yet another multi-billion dollar international climate finance facility was created in the wake of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change: the Green Climate Fund. This fund had the ambitious goal of facilitating the $100 billion of climate financing that the developed nations of the world pledged to contribute to appeasing the weather gods every single year by 2020. Well, it's 2021. Are they raking in a hundred billion a year by now? Hardly. So far, total pledges to the fund amount to a mere $10 billion, and only $2 billion of that has actually been disbursed. Suffice it to say the Green Climate Fund has been a colossal flop for the banksters so far. But don't worry about them. They're back with a fresh new scam: GFANZ! The Latest You can garner a sense of where international finance is heading in the 2020s from the disjointed, fragmented bits of "news" that slither into the MSM finance feeds: New Zealand to make banks report climate impact Janet Yellen Admits The "Net Zero" Grand Reset Price Tag Will Be $150 Trillion New corporate climate reporting standard ‘a game-changer’ But in order to really understand what's going on here, we have to go straight to the horse's mouth. And in this case, the two horses are bankster supergopher Mark Carney and financial gatekeeper Michael Bloomberg. They recently joined forces to opine in the pages of (where else) Bloomberg that "[In Order] To Fight Climate Change, [We Will Have To] Put Markets to Work." Amongst the usual hot air and empty rhetoric that inevitably form the fabric of such pieces, you'll find reference to yet another climate financing vehicle, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, or GFANZ. Launched at the recent UN "Conference of the Parties" in Glasgow (COP26), this group boasts the most ambitious goal yet: to organize the assets of 450 major financial institutions across 45 countries and commit them toward achieving a "net zero" economy. And the value of those assets? A cool $130 trillion. Whitney Webb does a great job breaking down this new body in her latest report, "UN-Backed Banker Alliance Announces “Green” Plan to Transform the Global Financial System." As Webb observes: As part of COP26, GFANZ— a key group at that conference—is publishing a plan aimed at scaling “private capital flows to emerging and developing economies.” Per the alliance’s press release, this plan focuses on “the development of country platforms to connect the now enormous private capital committed to net zero with country projects, scaling blended finance through MDBs [multilateral development banks] and developing high integrity, credible global carbon markets.” The press release notes that this “enormous private capital” is money that alliance members seek to invest in emerging and developing countries, estimated at over $130 trillion, and that—in order to deploy these trillions in investment—“the global financial system is being transformed” by this very alliance in coordination with the group that convened them, the United Nations. In order to understand what this means, we have to turn to the latest GFANZ progress report, in which Carney (who is chairing this banking alliance) writes: Only mainstream private finance can match the scale of climate action needed for the net-zero transition, including in emerging markets and developing countries. We cannot get to net zero in a niche. Rather, we must transition the entire financial system, alongside every sector of our economies. To mobilise the capital needed, GFANZ is developing the best practice tools and methodologies so that the climate is at the heart of every financial decision. These include driving upward convergence around corporate and financial institution net-zero transition plans, supporting frameworks and metrics to measure portfolio and sectoral net-zero alignment, creating new frameworks to wind down stranded assets responsibly in a way that is transparent and Paris-aligned, and mobilising the enormous capital required for the net-zero transition in emerging markets and developing countries. While this certainly sounds like a bunch of overheated, buzzword-laden gobbledygook, these terms do have actual referents in the financial world. The "frameworks and metrics to measure portfolio and sectoral net-zero alignment," for instance, refers to initiatives like the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, a creature of the Financial Stability Board that is developing international standards for reporting climate-related risks. Under these new standards, multinational corporations and financial bodies would have to devote considerable resources to complying with mandates for specific reporting on the energy inputs and outputs of all of their products and services and engage in climate risk mitigation that (naturally) involves obligatory tithes to the weather gods (i.e. bodies like GFANZ). To cut to the chase, we are heading toward a world in which the banksters will be able to use the cover of climate change to "eliminate national sovereignty, privatize the 'natural assets' (e.g., ecosystems, ecological processes) of the developing world, and force increasingly technocratic policies designed by global governance institutions and think tanks on ever more disenfranchised populations." This is the point of the climate change "threat" that is being pushed by every government, every major international body and every major corporation right now. It has no more to do with saving the environment as the hype about the scamdemic has to do with keeping people healthy. Instead, it is all about seizing as much control over the natural world as possible and squeezing every ounce of capital out of every square inch of the planet. We'd better wise up to this scheme quickly, or get used to living in the carbon-rationed, neofeudal nightmare economy that these banksters are bringing about in the name of global warming.
  22. 3 points
    Inflation hits highest level in a decade at 4.2% as fuel and energy bills soar Ahh the green dream, making us all poorer! https://news.sky.com/story/inflation-hits-highest-level-in-a-decade-at-4-2-as-fuel-and-energy-bills-soar-12470527
  23. 3 points
    GFANZ’s proposed plans to reimagine MDBs are particularly alarming given how leaked US military documents show that such banks are considered to be essentially “financial weapons” that have been used as “financial instruments and diplomatic instruments of US national power” as well as instruments of what those same documents refer to as the “current global governance system” that are used to force developing countries to adopt policies they otherwise would not. In addition, given Fink’s statements, it should not be surprising that the GFANZ report notes that their effort to establish “country platforms” and alter the functioning and charters of MDBs is a key component of implementing preplanned recommendations aimed at “seizing the New Bretton Woods moment” and remaking the “global financial governance” system so that it “promote[s] economic stability and sustainable growth.” As noted in other GFANZ documents and on their website, the goal of the alliance is the transformation of the global financial system, and it is obvious from member statements and alliance documents that the goal of that transformation is to facilitate the investment goals of alliance members beyond what is currently possible by using climate change-related dictates, rather than debt, as the means to that end. The UN and the “Quiet Revolution” In light of GFANZ’s membership and members’ ambitions, some may wonder why the United Nations would back such a predatory initiative. Doesn’t the United Nations, after all, chiefly work with national governments as opposed to private-sector interests? Though that is certainly the prevailing public perception of the UN, the organization has for decades been following a “stakeholder capitalist” model that privileges the private sector and billionaire “philanthropists” over national governments, with the latter merely being tasked with creating “enabling environments” for the policies created by and for the benefit of the former. Speaking to the World Economic Forum in 1998, Secretary General Kofi Annan made this shift explicit: “The United Nations has been transformed since we last met here in Davos. The Organization has undergone a complete overhaul that I have described as a ‘quiet revolution.” . . . A fundamental shift has occurred. The United Nations once dealt only with governments. By now we know that peace and prosperity cannot be achieved without partnerships involving governments, international organizations, the business community and civil society. . . . The business of the United Nations involves the businesses of the world.” With the UN now essentially a vehicle for the promotion of stakeholder capitalism, it is only fitting that it would “convene” and support the efforts of a group like GFANZ to extend that stakeholder capitalist model to other institutions involved in global governance, specifically global financial governance. Allowing GFANZ members, that is, many of the largest private banks and financial institutions in the world, to fuse with MDBs, remake the “global financial governance system,” and gain increased control over political decisions in the emerging world is a banker’s dream come true. To get this far, all they have needed to do was to convince enough of the world’s population that such shifts are necessary due to the perceived urgency of climate change and the need to rapidly decarbonize the economy. Yet, if put into practice, what will result is hardly a “greener” world but a world dominated by a small financial and technocratic elite who are free to profit and pillage from both “natural capital” and “human capital.” Today, MDBs are used as “instruments of power” that utilize debt to force developing nations to implement policies that benefit foreign interests rather than their own national interests. If GFANZ gets its way, the MDBs of tomorrow will be used to essentially eliminate national sovereignty, privatize the “natural assets” (e.g., ecosystems, ecological processes) of the developing world, and force increasingly technocratic policies designed by global governance institutions and think tanks on ever more disenfranchised populations. Though GFANZ has cloaked itself in lofty rhetoric of “saving the planet,” its plans ultimately amount to a corporate-led coup that will make the global financial system even more corrupt and predatory and further reduce the sovereignty of national governments in the developing world. CFLI climate COP26 GFANZ MBDs NACs Natural Asset Corporations Author Whitney Webb Whitney Webb has been a professional writer, researcher and journalist since 2016. She has written for several websites and, from 2017 to 2020, was a staff writer and senior investigative reporter for Mint Press News. She currently writes for The Last American Vagabond. This describes our current administration's policy very closely. Crony capitalists are abundant, socialists are fully backing the same policies, knowing that they could eventually take full control of the crony corporations eventually starting by "creating the supporting environment" for them. That is a sneaky way of saying financial support and legal permissions, rebates, tax breaks etc. Our Democrat administration and those in the rest of the Western world are all on the same page to a great extent. It is much more profitable to REPLACE an existing structure that actually works with a system that is unproven at the scale that is actually needed. It would take 50 to 100 years worldwide and it would destroy the economies of all Western Nations. China, Russia, OPEC nations, and all those who continue to produce, sell, and use "fossil fuels" flourish and grow their economies. That is the true goal and agenda of the crony capitalist and leftists who have their eyes on total control of the world. Meanwhile they would have decades to reap profits and destroy the middle class. The middle class will soon become helpless and hopeless.
  24. 3 points
    The UN and World Bank make the Mafia at its peak look like Boy Scouts. Talk about corruption. These are two of the finest examples.
  25. 3 points
  26. 3 points
    We dare not burn that nasty polluting goo. Nor do we have to do so. Being a former engineer for a large power company and having earned a Master of Science in Energy and the Environment, I had PV panels installed six years ago, with my estimated payback of 15-17 years, . . the right thing for an eco-freak to do. Before they could be installed, we acquired a VW e-Golf electric car. The savings in gasoline alone took the solar system payback down to 3 1/2 years. So, we added a used Tesla Model S, P85, and that took the payback down to less than three years, which means we now get free power for household and transportation. But that is not all: We do not need to go to gas stations, we fuel up at home at night with cheap baseload power. During the daytime, the PV system turns our meter backwards powering the neighborhood with clean local power, which we trade for the stuff to be used that night. If we paid for transportation fuel, the VW would cost us 4 cents/mile to drive, and the Tesla would cost 5 cents/mile at California off-peak power prices. No oil changes are a real treat along with no leaks. And since it has an electric motor, it needs NO ENGINE MAINTENANCE at all. We do not go "gas up", or get tune-ups or emissions checks, have no transmission about which to worry, no complicated machined parts needing care. The future is fossil-fuel free, cheaper and CLEAN.
  27. 2 points
    https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/935863 This is one procedure for getting rid of the carboxyl and making an olefin: Direct conversion of carboxylic acids (Cn) to alkenes (C2n − 1) over titanium oxide in absence of noble metals https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S138111691630019X Sucrose is basically a glucose molecule tacked together with a fructose molecule. Fructose, in turn, is only mildly different from glucose. It might be possible to extract the sucrose from a living tree (without killing it), making it technically possible to 'grow' an 'oil well' in your back yard (or garden, for the Brits). This presumes you aren't living in a high-rise. One would need about 24 pounds of sugar to make 6 pounds (one gallon) of gasoline. Wood is made up of cellulose. Cellulose is a polymer of starches. Starches are a polymer of glucose. Cellulose can be broken down into sugars with various common acids, including sulfuric and hydrochloric.
  28. 2 points
    Quite well said. This group has over extended their cover of secrecy..or better said have over stepped the lines. While I am not sure how this will be rectified or if it can be...this cabal is all in...no looking back. What is appalling to me is the degradation of US society and the rise of China's world wide power. You once eluded to the world has the right to live in US standard's. That thought still haunts me, envy,greed and anger are very strong motivators... My greatest fear would be this group of progressive socialist's may well believe they can unite this world under one tent. Never mind what XI/Puttin have in mind. The US media and the Brookings institution needs a smidge of a purge. Or better a hygienic cleansing ...However it falls it will be a bumpy ride. So many opinions so little time.
  29. 2 points
    Anyone with any sense does not believe the mainstream media. You are correct that about 90% of it is scripted dialogue that is spoken by talking heads. The truth is still spoken in America however and we will all see a lot of it after the next election. Not enough, but better. The crony capitalists control America and sell out to any politicians that will play ball with them. Nancy Pelosi is a perfect example.
  30. 2 points
    Are we already economically doomed? I look at: https://www.usdebtclock.org/ and it looks rather hopeless. Fed Revenues (per year) = 4 trillion Medicare/Medicaid = 1.25 trillion SSI - 1 trillion Military = 0.75 trillion Interest on debt = .0420 trillion Top 4 major expenses = 3.042 trillion when inflation < 1% this last year. What happens when interest payments go to 1.5 to 2 trillion due to inflation? It will just snowball. I don't see Venezuela happening here any later than 2030.
  31. 2 points
    Ethanol for corn, I'll agree is marginal at best. Ethanol from Sugarcane is very robust, and basically makes money (and energy) hand over fist wherever the agricultural conditions are suitable. The yield is ~ 6 times better than the ethanol yield from corn, after accounting for the fact that sugarcane is a very energy intensive crop to grow. On a net energy basis, for every liter/gallon of diesel worth of fuel that is required for fertilizer, tractors, transport, processing, etc. sugarcane produces about 10 liters of equivalent energy liquid fuel. For sugarcane, The leftover cellulose IS burnt, but not necessarily the way you might think. A small amount of it is burn in the field, but the vast majority is burnt in/at the sugar cane mills. After the stalks are diced up, and the sugar containing juice is pressed out, then steam extracted, the 'bagasse' (technical term for the mass of stuff left over) is burnt in a co-generation plant, producing electricity to run the mill (and for the grid) process heat for sugar production, and steam for sugar production. It's actually highly efficient, and workable anywhere that there is plenty of suitable land available. Brazil is the primary example. Just as with many conventional hydrocarbon production techniques there are large scaling issues. The various Caribbean islands (except maybe Cuba), as well suited as they are for growing sugar cane, simply aren't big enough to grow enough sugar cane to make it worth the investment in refining equipment required to make it worthwhile.
  32. 2 points
    Aha! Compare the size of the tanks on the two trucks. The site you give appears to be a chronological news feed. Which makes them somewhat less useful. Note the top news item they have right now though https://www.lngindustry.com/liquid-natural-gas/25112021/ham-delivers-lng-refuelling-service-station-to-novatek/ So, there is portable LNG-powered machinery smaller than a ship in Poland right now? I am at a loss to guess what it is. Do you know?
  33. 2 points
    What I say is obfuscated by the crop rotation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilth#Rotation That is, corn is not grown on the same patch every year
  34. 2 points
    The hump is the Himalayas Mountains rather than the Tibetan plateau* that sits behind it. None of this has stopped the Chinese building roads in Tibet or indeed large wind farms. Now if you can get wind turbines and towers up onto the plateau you can do it with solar as the plant is smaller and modular. Infact while on the subject of facts lets introduce some about solar in Tibet This is What 4 Million Solar Panels Look Like From Space | Climate Central Consortium for Battery Innovation | » China Shoto – World’s highest solar farm Tibet: solar power has resolved electricity usage issues for over 600,000 people_News_TIBET Let us know when they start laying the pacific cable. * Flat elevated table land
  35. 2 points
    Chile's mining operators are not going to forgo >$10,000 ton for processed copper. This Chile - China cable really is the domain of Oil Price.coms crack pipe connoisseurs 🤣 A 3 GW cable, even if it can deliver 24/7 - 365 days a year (with solar.....) is 26 Twh Lets say wholesale electricity price in China is 10c/kwh Thats $2.6 billion of revenue a year. From which you have to deduct Cost of the solar farms Building of the transmission both on land and submarine Building the transformers Operating the system No doubt some taxes In reality transmission losses with HVDC are about 1.5% per 1000km so the system will lose 15-20% of the input energy NSL was 2 billion Euros through shallow seas. . Even if we assume the Pacific fantasy can be done at 1/3 the price per km the cable is 22x longer with double the capacity. You are looking at a 31 billion euro ($35 billion USD) investment .
  36. 2 points
    This alliance, called the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero...is essentially a creative way of marketing “corporatism,” the definition of fascism infamously supplied by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini... ...multilateral development banks (MDBs)...like the World Bank, have long been criticized for accomplishing this task by trapping developing nations in debt and then using that debt to force those nations to deregulate markets (specifically financial markets), privatize state assets and implement unpopular austerity policies. The GFANZ report makes it clear that the alliance now seeks to use these same, controversial tactics of MDBs by forcing even greater deregulation on developing countries to facilitate “green” investments from alliance members. -- EXCERPTS FROM ARTICLE https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/11/investigative-reports/un-backed-banker-alliance-announces-green-plan-to-transform-the-global-financial-system/ UN-Backed Banker Alliance Announces “Green” Plan to Transform the Global Financial System The most powerful private financial interests in the world, under the cover of COP26, have developed a plan to transform the global financial system by fusing with institutions like the World Bank and using them to further erode national sovereignty in the developing world. byWhitney Webb November 5, 2021 9 minute read On Wednesday, an “industry-led and UN-convened” alliance of private banking and financial institutions announced plans at the COP26 conference to overhaul the role of global and regional financial institutions, including the World Bank and IMF, as part of a broader plan to “transform” the global financial system. The officially stated purpose of this proposed overhaul, per alliance members, is to promote the transition to a “net zero” economy. However, the group’s proposed “reimagining” of international financial institutions, according to their recently published “progress report,” would also move to merge these institutions with the private-banking interests that compose the alliance; create a new system of “global financial governance”; and erode national sovereignty among developing countries by forcing them to establish business environments deemed “friendly” to the interests of alliance members. In other words, the powerful banking interests that compose this group are pushing to recreate the entire global financial system for their benefit under the guise of promoting sustainability. This alliance, called the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), was launched in April by John Kerry, US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate Change; Janet Yellen, US Secretary of the Treasury and former chair of the Federal Reserve; and Mark Carney, UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance and former chair of the Bank of England and Bank of Canada. Carney, who is also the UK prime minister’s Finance Advisor for the COP26 conference, currently cochairs the alliance with US billionaire and former mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg. GFANZ Leadership; Source: GFANZ On its creation, GFANZ stated that it would “provide a forum for strategic coordination among the leadership of finance institutions from across the finance sector to accelerate the transition to a net zero economy” and “mobilize the trillions of dollars necessary” to accomplish the group’s zero emissions goals. At the time of the alliance’s launch, UK prime minister Boris Johnson described GFANZ as “uniting the world’s banks and financial institutions behind the global transition to net zero,” while John Kerry noted that “the largest financial players in the world recognize energy transition represents a vast commercial opportunity.” In analyzing those two statements together, it seems clear that GFANZ has united the world’s most powerful private banks and financial institutions behind what it sees, first and foremost, as “a vast commercial opportunity,” the exploitation of which it is marketing as a “planetary imperative.” John Kerry in conversation with CNN’s Christine Amanpour at COP 26. Source: CNN GFANZ is composed of several “subsector alliances,” including the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative (NZAM), the Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance (NZAOA), and the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA). Together, they command a formidable part of global private banking and finance interests, with the NZBA alone currently representing 43 percent of all global banking assets. However, the “largest financial players” who dominate GFANZ include the CEOs of BlackRock, Citi, Bank of America, Banco Santander, and HSBC, as well as David Schwimmer, CEO of the London Stock Exchange Group and Nili Gilbert, chair of the Investment Committee of the David Rockefeller Fund. Notably, another Rockefeller-connected entity, the Rockefeller Foundation, recently played a pivotal role in the creation of Natural Asset Corporations (NACs) in September. These NACs seek to create a new asset class that would put the natural world, as well as the ecological processes that underpin all life, up for sale under the guise of “protecting” them. Principals of GFANZ, including BlackRock’s Larry Fink, have long been enthusiastic about the prospects of NACs and other related efforts to financialize the natural world and he has also played a key role in marketing such financialization as necessary to combat climate change. As part of COP26, GFANZ— a key group at that conference—is publishing a plan aimed at scaling “private capital flows to emerging and developing economies.” Per the alliance’s press release, this plan focuses on “the development of country platforms to connect the now enormous private capital committed to net zero with country projects, scaling blended finance through MDBs [multilateral development banks] and developing high integrity, credible global carbon markets.” The press release notes that this “enormous private capital” is money that alliance members seek to invest in emerging and developing countries, estimated at over $130 trillion, and that—in order to deploy these trillions in investment—“the global financial system is being transformed” by this very alliance in coordination with the group that convened them, the United Nations. Proposing a Takeover Details of GFANZ’s plan to deploy trillions of member investments into emerging markets and developing countries was published in the alliance’s inaugural “Progress Report,” the release of which was timed to coincide with the COP26 conference. The report details the alliance’s “near-term work plan and ambitions,” which the alliance succinctly summarizes as a “program of work to transform the financial system.” The report notes that the alliance has moved from the “commitment” stage to the “engagement” stage, with the main focus of the engagement stage being the “mobilization of private capital into emerging markets and developing countries through private-sector leadership and public-private collaboration.” In doing so, per the report, GFANZ seeks to create “an international financial architecture” that will increase levels of private investment from alliance members in those economies. Their main objectives in this regard revolve around the creation of “ambitious country platforms” and increased collaboration between MDBs and the private financial sector. GFANZ Progress ReportDownload [See Original Article for embedded report.] Per GFANZ, a “country platform” is defined as a mechanism that convenes and aligns “stakeholders,” that is, a mechanism for public-private partnership/stakeholder capitalism, “around a specific issue or geography.” Examples offered include Mike Bloomberg’s Climate Finance Leadership Initiative (CFLI), which is partnered with Goldman Sachs and HSBC among other private-sector institutions. While framed as being driven by “stakeholders,” existing examples of “country platforms” offered by the GFANZ are either private sector-led initiatives, like the CFLI, or public-private partnerships that are dominated by powerful multinational corporations and billionaires. As recently explained by journalist and researcher Iain Davis, these “stakeholder capitalism” mechanism models, despite being presented as offering a “more responsible” form of capitalism, allow corporations and private entities to participate in forming the regulations that govern their own markets and giving them a greatly increased role in political decision making by placing them on an equal footing with national governments. It is essentially a creative way of marketing “corporatism,” the definition of fascism infamously supplied by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. In addition to the creation of “corporatist” “country platforms” that focus on specific areas and/or issues in the developing world, GFANZ aims to also further “corporatize” multilateral development banks (MDBs) and development finance institutions (DFIs) in order to better fulfill the investment goals of alliance members. Per the alliance, this is described as increasing “MDB-private sector collaboration.” The GFANZ report notes that “MDBs play a critical role in helping to grow investment flows” in the developing world. MDBs, like the World Bank, have long been criticized for accomplishing this task by trapping developing nations in debt and then using that debt to force those nations to deregulate markets (specifically financial markets), privatize state assets and implement unpopular austerity policies. The GFANZ report makes it clear that the alliance now seeks to use these same, controversial tactics of MDBs by forcing even greater deregulation on developing countries to facilitate “green” investments from alliance members. The report explicitly states that MDBs should be used to prompt developing nations “to create the right high-level, cross-cutting enabling environments” for alliance members’ investments in those nations. The significantly greater levels of private-capital investment, which are needed to reach net zero per GFANZ, require that MDBs are used to prompt developing nations to “establish investment-friendly business environments; a replicable framework for deploying private capital investments; and pipelines of bankable investment opportunities.” GFANZ then notes that “private capital and investment will flow to these projects if governments and policymakers create the appropriate conditions,” that is, enable environments for private-sector investments. In other words, through the proposed increase in private-sector involvement in MDBs, such as the World Bank and regional development banks, alliance members seek to use MDBs to globally impose massive and extensive deregulation on developing countries by using the decarbonization push as justification. No longer must MDBs entrap developing nations in debt to force policies that benefit foreign and multinational private-sector entities, as climate change-related justifications can now be used for the same ends. BlackRock CEO and GFANZ principal Larry Fink talks to CNBC during COP26. Source: CNBC This new modality for MDBs, along with their fusion with the private sector, is ultimately what GFANZ proposes in terms of “reimagining” these institutions. GFANZ principal and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, during a COP26 panel that took place on November 2, explicitly referred to the plan to overhaul these institutions when he said: “If we’re going to be serious about climate change in the emerging world, we’re going to have to really focus on the reimagination of the World Bank and the IMF.” Fink continued: “They are the senior lender, and not enough private capital’s coming into the emerging world today because of the risks associated with the political risk, investing in brownfield investments — if we are serious about elevating investment capital in the emerging world. . . . I’m urging the owners of those institutions, the equity owners, to focus on how we reimagine these institutions and rethink their charter.” GFANZ’s proposed plans to reimagine MDBs are particularly alarming given how leaked US military documents show that such banks are considered to be essentially “financial weapons” that have been used as “financial instruments and diplomatic instruments of US national power” as well as instruments of what those same documents refer to as the “current global governance system” that are used to force developing countries to adopt policies they otherwise would not. In addition, given Fink’s statements, it should not be surprising that the GFANZ report notes that their effort to establish “country platforms” and alter the functioning and charters of MDBs is a key component of implementing preplanned recommendations aimed at “seizing the New Bretton Woods moment” and remaking the “global financial governance” system so that it “promote[s] economic stability and sustainable growth.” As noted in other GFANZ documents and on their website, the goal of the alliance is the transformation of the global financial system, and it is obvious from member statements and alliance documents that the goal of that transformation is to facilitate the investment goals of alliance members beyond what is currently possible by using climate change-related dictates, rather than debt, as the means to that end. The UN and the “Quiet Revolution” In light of GFANZ’s membership and members’ ambitions, some may wonder why the United Nations would back such a predatory initiative. Doesn’t the United Nations, after all, chiefly work with national governments as opposed to private-sector interests? Though that is certainly the prevailing public perception of the UN, the organization has for decades been following a “stakeholder capitalist” model that privileges the private sector and billionaire “philanthropists” over national governments, with the latter merely being tasked with creating “enabling environments” for the policies created by and for the benefit of the former. Speaking to the World Economic Forum in 1998, Secretary General Kofi Annan made this shift explicit: “The United Nations has been transformed since we last met here in Davos. The Organization has undergone a complete overhaul that I have described as a ‘quiet revolution.” . . . A fundamental shift has occurred. The United Nations once dealt only with governments. By now we know that peace and prosperity cannot be achieved without partnerships involving governments, international organizations, the business community and civil society. . . . The business of the United Nations involves the businesses of the world.” With the UN now essentially a vehicle for the promotion of stakeholder capitalism, it is only fitting that it would “convene” and support the efforts of a group like GFANZ to extend that stakeholder capitalist model to other institutions involved in global governance, specifically global financial governance. Allowing GFANZ members, that is, many of the largest private banks and financial institutions in the world, to fuse with MDBs, remake the “global financial governance system,” and gain increased control over political decisions in the emerging world is a banker’s dream come true. To get this far, all they have needed to do was to convince enough of the world’s population that such shifts are necessary due to the perceived urgency of climate change and the need to rapidly decarbonize the economy. Yet, if put into practice, what will result is hardly a “greener” world but a world dominated by a small financial and technocratic elite who are free to profit and pillage from both “natural capital” and “human capital.” Today, MDBs are used as “instruments of power” that utilize debt to force developing nations to implement policies that benefit foreign interests rather than their own national interests. If GFANZ gets its way, the MDBs of tomorrow will be used to essentially eliminate national sovereignty, privatize the “natural assets” (e.g., ecosystems, ecological processes) of the developing world, and force increasingly technocratic policies designed by global governance institutions and think tanks on ever more disenfranchised populations. Though GFANZ has cloaked itself in lofty rhetoric of “saving the planet,” its plans ultimately amount to a corporate-led coup that will make the global financial system even more corrupt and predatory and further reduce the sovereignty of national governments in the developing world. CFLI climate COP26 GFANZ MBDs NACs Natural Asset Corporations Author Whitney Webb Whitney Webb has been a professional writer, researcher and journalist since 2016. She has written for several websites and, from 2017 to 2020, was a staff writer and senior investigative reporter for Mint Press News. She currently writes for The Last American Vagabond.
  37. 2 points
    Authorities making a naturally caused food crisis worse were not unique to USSR in those years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943, and the Irish could add some comments too. Concerning punishments for "free speakers", Russia these years is a very reluctant "punisher", with some red lines like organizing demonstrations without even attempting to secure a permit -- something that is not tolerated in the West either. You can easily read opposition newspapers or watch opposition channel on the web. Importantly, whatever indicator of freedom of speech and political activity, Ukraine is much worse than Russia.
  38. 2 points
    Oh, is government regulation and crony corporatism what you communist sympathizers call "free market"?
  39. 2 points
    This would be like steam reformers for H2. Great while energy is cheap but the Thermodynamics are highly positive. That reflects NG price increases.
  40. 2 points
    Yes I did - I was referring to Southern interior spain which is mostly semi desert. Obviously that north south differential widens as you travel north. That link is specifically for the area south of Albacete. January output per 1kw of PV - 119kwh July output per 1 KW of PV - 169kwh So in that case peak winter output is 70% of peak summer output. No doubt helped by having a dry, cool sunny winter climate, also at altitude. PVGIS-5_GridConnectedPV_37.845_-2.269_SA_crystSi_1kWp_14_35deg_0deg.pdf
  41. 2 points
    Jay the article is about fuel and energy costs driving inflation which havent run their course yet, it has nothing to do with iron or lumber. Regarding iron or specifically steel grades for the oil and gas industries, my company has just been told by 2 European steel mills that the 300tonnes orders they both have they are not going to produce, not only that they arent going to produce at any price as they cannot forecast where gas prices will be. In fact 1 of them has closed for a month as its uneconomic to produce at present. Does that look like an end to the problem to you??? "completed the cycle" hmmmm.
  42. 2 points
    U.S. Carbon (CO2) Emissions 1960-2018 Data Source: World Bank
  43. 2 points
  44. 2 points
    The political confrontation in Congress is now tilting towards free markets and away from wasteful subsidies which would distort the economic signals in investment decisions. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Democratic-Senator-Manchin-Opposes-Tax-Credit-For-Union-Made-EVs.html "“When I heard about this, what they were putting in the bill, I went right to the sponsor [Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.] and I said, ‘This is wrong. This can’t happen. It’s not who we are as a country. It’s not how we built this country, and the product should speak for itself.” The proposal includes up to $7,500 in tax credits for EVs, plus an additional $4,500 tax credit if the vehicle is assembled at a union facility. “We shouldn’t use everyone’s tax dollars to pick winners and losers. If you’re a capitalist economy that we are in society then you let the product speak for itself, and hopefully, we’ll get that, that’ll be corrected,” Senator Manchin told Automotive News in an interview."
  45. 2 points
    This has now gotten to the point where it is absurd… Washington D.C. bubble of idiotic tone-deaf fools are going against any kind of normalcy in any industry. They pushed this infrastructure bill as urgent yet brain dead Biden has yet to sign it into law! These WOKE Corporations and hedge funds are adding to the problem of buying into not providing financial investment to energy companies by the threat of Board of Directors replacement. Black Rock is the most egressive of them. Black Rock should be broken up, and other companies that have too much say within the being a private sector. This should include Facebook, Google, and Twitter!
  46. 2 points
    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Crude-Oil-Is-Back-And-It-Isnt-Going-Anywhere.html WATCH VIDEO Crude Oil Is Back, And It Isn’t Going Anywhere By Tsvetana Paraskova - Nov 11, 2021, 7:00 PM CST Join Our Community Pressured by investors and society, the global oil industry is looking for ways to stay in the game by meeting the world's growing demand for energy, including crude, with the lowest carbon emissions possible. Such a feat by an industry so entrenched into our existence could surely secure its position even in a green future. Have they recovered enough from the pandemic to take on this monumental challenge? Oil Demand Is Back A year and a half after the 2020 COVID crisis began, analysts, forecasters, industry executives, and investment banks have been forced to acknowledge that the pandemic did not, in fact, sound the death knell for global oil demand. Consumption has roared back to pre-crisis levels—or is at worst merely weeks away from reaching them. It has become evident for all observers—even reluctant ones, including the harsh critics of the 'keep it in the ground' camp—that the world will not move away entirely from oil—at least not for decades to come. According to supermajor BP, global oil demand has already topped 100 million barrels per day (bpd) last seen before the pandemic. "We are at or about 2019 levels now," Russell Hardy, CEO at the world's biggest independent oil trader, Vitol, told the online Reuters Commodities Trading Conference this week, as carried by Bloomberg. And crude oil demand is set to continue rising into next year, Hardy added. Earlier this week, Saudi Aramco's CEO Amin Nasser said that the world would see its level of spare oil production capacity dwindle next year as jet fuel demand returns to pre- or near-pre-crisis levels. Little spare capacity amid continued underinvestment in oil and gas should be "a huge concern" for the market going forward, Nasser said, echoing the sentiment of many executives in the industry. Even Fatih Birol, the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), highlighted this week in a video call with a senior Japanese official "the need for additional investment to meet future demand, explaining that the demand for oil and natural gas will not drastically decrease even through our path towards transition to renewable energy," per the statement from the Japanese foreign ministry. Industry Looks To Cut Emissions, But Oil Will Be Needed For Decades Although it has been demonized by activists in recent years, it will be the oil industry that will meet the world's demand for energy for years and decades to come. Fossil fuels still account for 80 percent of total global energy consumption, while hundreds of millions of people in developing countries still do not have access to any energy source at all. Some supermajors, such as Shell, have said their own oil production has already peaked. All international oil companies are boosting investments in reducing their emissions and are using the cash from profitable oil and gas projects to invest more in lower-carbon energy sources. It's not easy to be a supermajor these days—investors, activist shareholders, and environmentalists want accountability and lower emissions, but the world still runs on fossil fuels and will continue to need oil and gas for decades, whenever peak oil demand occurs. Shell, for example, operates in an environment of "significant hostility and demonization of our sector," and "I realize it finds its way also in the asset manager world and it finds its way in the asset owner world," CEO Ben van Beurden said on the Q3 call last month, commenting on shareholder activism. "But let's also be very clear, the world still needs oil and gas…And I think, therefore, it is not only legal, it is legitimate and necessary that oil and gas products are being provided and they better be provided by companies that, first of all, know how to do it, have a very responsible attitude to doing so and indeed have a strategy to use some of that cash, not just to fund shareholder distributions, but also to transition the company to a better, a cleaner, a lower carbon slate," van Beurden added. ExxonMobil, for its part, is investing $15 billion in a lower-carbon future, as the U.S. supermajor is "taking a leading role in providing the products that enable modern life, reducing carbon emissions and developing needed technologies to advance a lower-carbon emissions future," CEO Darren Woods wrote in a post this week. Not All Crude Is Equal The industry is looking at cutting emissions from operations, and many companies have pledged to achieve net-zero emissions from their operated assets at some point over the next 30 years. Yet, not all oil projects have the same carbon footprint, so operators have different pathways in their efforts to cut emissions. Some of the differences are striking, according to crude carbon intensity calculations recently launched by S&P Global Platts. According to the estimates of 14 major oilfields globally, Johan Sverdrup in Norway has the lowest upstream carbon intensity of CO2 equivalent per barrel of oil equivalent, followed by another project offshore Norway—Ekofisk. Johan Sverdrup's operator Equinor says that a barrel of oil produced at the giant field in the North Sea emitted 0.17 kilograms of CO2 in the first year. That's almost 100 times lower CO2 emissions than the global average of 18 kg CO2 per barrel, mainly due to the use of hydroelectric power from shore, the Norwegian major says. The Cold Lake oil sands field in Canada has the highest carbon intensity of the 14 oilfields, followed by Kirkuk in Iraq, according to S&P Global Platts. The Bakken in North Dakota has the third-largest carbon intensity of the fields in the analysis. The major U.S. shale fields, the Permian and the Eagle Ford, as well as Saudi Arabia's giant Ghawar oilfield, have carbon intensity around the global average, per S&P Global Platts estimates. Companies that can meet the anticipated and ongoing need for crude oil with lower emissions could have more staying power than those producing oil and gas with higher emissions. But lower emissions or not, oil demand isn't going anywhere just yet, and the world will need oil and gas companies to fulfill that demand. By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com
  47. 2 points
    There is a study that goes into depth on the amount of fuel... bunker fuel shipping actually consumes. That number staggers the mind. Bunker fuel itself is not measured or tracked. It seems it hides under some high seas regulation....meaning it can't be tracked. The Saudi's are the main source of bunker fuel.
  48. 2 points
    Thorium is practically everywhere in mining and a pain to get rid of. To get Fissil Thor, you have to put it in a Uranium reactor first. But, once it is started, you just keep adding Thor.
  49. 2 points
    Surprisingly, but even most of US LNG sold under long-term contrats... Only small fraction going to sales on spot market
  50. 2 points