JM

GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

Recommended Posts

On 4/23/2021 at 2:24 AM, JoMack said:

So, the energy sector along with the country is in big trouble, and it's been 4 months.  We see the oil price moving about $5 bucks up and down every couple of weeks, and it's unsettling with banks lending on environmental risk and social justice risk.  Before the "Woke" came into play between energy and the lenders, risk was based on the proven reserves, developed and undeveloped, and now, how the hell do you calculate social justice risk?

Well, part of it is accounting for things that have previously not been accounted for. 

For example, the government just reintroduced the social cost of carbon:

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/03/01/biden-administration-sets-social-cost-of-carbon-at-51-per-ton/

The Obama administration had introduced this,  but the Trump administration had set it to an absurdly small number and cancelled any discussions on setting a fair price.

So ultimately, it shifted towards states and many companies internally adopted carbon accounting. 

Many large energy companies do not mind because it helps them internally justify investments in things like CCS and it keeps investors happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

5 hours ago, markslawson said:

 The batteries may take the edge off and give time for the peaking plants to start up, but the gas plants will still be required. End of story. 

So Mark, can you explain how a grid that has 40GWh of peaker demand and 40GWh of charged batteries would still have to run the natural gas peaker plants to meet that demand?

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, lies.  but what else did you expect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it’s a lie. Let’s get that straight. Israel is offering Iran a free hookup to the Texas grid because bigger grids offer more stability. Here’s the problem. They want to run electrical lines next to the wall. Everybody knows we’re still waiting on the Mexicans to finish the wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of the wall the number of illegal immigrants has remained stable for over a decade. This means deportations have equaled those who slip through the border, Or stayed after getting an education or stayed after picking crops in the fields or stayed after a business meeting. Should our virtual walls include business, agriculture and education? Let’s ban illegal immigrant enhancing tourism. 
Better yet let’s ban any air travel. Yank those planes out of the air. That will put a dent in illegal immigration. I love supporting some far right issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2021 at 1:24 AM, JoMack said:

As Biden, the President of Climate Change, and Kerry, our fabulous Climate Czar, who just gave Japan the thumbs up to dump millions of tons of waste water from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean, who then flies off in his private jet to Martha's Vineyard, decide to create a massive legislative boondoggle called the Green New Deal.  Now, they are not alone, they have the full throated backing from a bartender from Westchester NY, a socialist from Vermont, and other liberal climatoligists who get on twitter and tell us definitely that we're all going to all die in 10 years if we don't comply.  So, all of the climate crew are preparing to bring America into the dark ages. We have the new DOE Grishom, ex-Michigan Gov. who didn't meet a pipeline she didn't want to expunge (and Whitmer has now taken up the mantel on Line 5), and then we have Haaland, head of DOI, who didn't meet a drilling rig she didn't want to burn to the ground.  So, we have a group of thugs, pushing their agenda, and with no solutions, objectives,  science, economics, or the actual future of the U.S. in mind, so they press ahead with a monumental agenda where no one wins, expect them.

In 4 months, the U.S. production has dropped over 2 million barrels and the climate wizards are demanding that the U.S. drop its emissions by 50% by 2030.  WHOA!  How is that going to work?  Doesn't matter, just gut up and do it.  Overhauling the electric grid?  1/2 million charging stations?  refitting millions of buildings, transitioning all federal vehicles to EVs, etc.  It's such a lofty goal, but while being in Texas in February, I know for certain, that even 4 days without power, heat, communication and black ice, car dead, it's a pretty scary ordeal, and that's just 4 days.  So, just wondering just a bit about solar and wind, no one seems to be considering the problem of the massive renewable capacity that will be required to supply energy to the nation.  Not only the grid, but the vast swaths of land with new infrastructure at the same time that politicians and landowners from California to Vermont are fighting against the encroachment of large-scale renewable energy projects.

New York is shutting down its last nuclear plant at Indian Point and Gov. (in big trouble) Cuomo won't allow drilling or pipelines, so this should be pretty interesting to watch next winter, L.A. County banned large wind turbines and San Bernardino Co, Humboldt County, and Santa Barbara County rejected new wind turbines in their communities.  So as California, the big kahuna of renewable energy, between 2013 and 2019 California added less than 200MW of new wind energy capacity.  California as we know, will do anything to get to their goal of 30% lower emissions this year, so it's not much of a challenge to find some of the projects they have promoted in order to reach that standard.  Below is Ivanpah, with 350,000 garage size heliostats (mirrors) with 3 459' boiling towers costing $2.2B, backed by the U.S. taxpayers.  The facility has had more problems than Biden's thought process and the beams from the sun blind pilots going into LAX, scorch birds out of the sky (called streamers) - not sparrows by the way, covers 4000 feet of land in the Mojave Desert which "was" protected for wind burrow and the desert tortoise (but, it's for the good of the environment you idiots), and its capacity for all its cost and environmental issues it generates 342MW of power.  That would be 140,000 homes.  Yup, what a great project, and let's mot forget Crescent Dunes, another solar project that went bankrupt last year.  

 

So, we are going into a big giant mass of insanity with the Biden Administration going back into the Iran Nuclear Deal and handing them bucks and China is paying Iran with their cryptocurrency to a million+ bbls of oil.  So, the energy sector along with the country is in big trouble, and it's been 4 months.  We see the oil price moving about $5 bucks up and down every couple of weeks, and it's unsettling with banks lending on environmental risk and social justice risk.  Before the "Woke" came into play between energy and the lenders, risk was based on the proven reserves, developed and undeveloped, and now, how the hell do you calculate social justice risk?  But, wait, Exxon, BP, Shell, Conoco has been fighting failing states like NY, MA, CT, DE (Biden's home town BTW) CA, etc. (blue=disaster), for climate change disinformation.  As Biden says "Wreaked Havoc on Our Climate"! So, the Majors are now folding to the woke crowd, climate change will be the breakthrough for huge legal class actions, and the big question after all is said and done, will America survive?

 

 

 

 

 

image.thumb.png.c37fd3d71cd4056812932a785053d2e5.png

Investment and choices often come down to money. You say this insanity will cause $5 moves in the price of oil? Bring on the insanity. Oil has never been that stable 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pace of change in energy is overhyped. I think the goals of change are overblown. The energy market is so huge even throwing hundreds of billions at it changes small percentage points. Over the next few years electricity for example will be judged on its changing reliability and cost. The consumer is very picky if they think either is taking a hit. 
Renewables, battery storage, electric transportation, data management, mining and all other sorts of tech will be perceived as more cost effective or not. 
Intuitively I feel growing to fast of a change can be wasted dollars. Like early solar in Europe was. But some of this cost is reasonable to get to scale which drops costs. So it’s the balance and speed of change we should be debating. Not the idea of cleaner tech. 
A few years and couple of trillion is not that big a deal. In 5 years we might say those results are great and with improved technology let’s throw another 5 at it. Or results were not as good as expected so keep investing in research for a couple years and save bigger bucks for later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Look up 'narcissist'. I suspect you've heard this mentioned before, somewhere.

Tut tut Poor Meridith, you're name calling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Boat said:
8 hours ago, Boat said:

Investment and choices often come down to money. You say this insanity will cause $5 moves in the price of oil? Bring on the insanity. Oil has never been that stable 

 

Nope, I didn't say insanity will cause $5.00 moves in the price of oil.  I said the $5.00 movement was somewhat troubling and here's why.

$60.00 a barrel WTI is a magic number for drilling and exploration, yet the Baker Hughes rig count is only 438, down from 728 last year when oil prices were lower or close to that range.  The 60 day moratorium on leasing and permitting on federal lands onshore and offshore is now into 100 days and the DOI Secretary Haaland just banned coal leasing.  Production in the U.S. is down over 2 million barrels, and Biden is going back into the Iranian Nuclear Deal in all likelihood, and now Hamas is rising again in the Gaza Strip with hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to the Palestinians from the Biden Administration.   Russia now has 100,000 troops on the border of Ukraine and Biden is adding sanctions and Putin may be pushed into retaliating against the U.S. and it may perhaps be through military action or blockade of imports to the US.  With Biden embracing Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia are being severely impacted by Biden's actions and both nations have the power to strangle U.S. energy supplies. The EIA recently stated the following (World Oil):

U.S. will import 62% more crude by 2022 due to domestic production declines, says EIA

As Biden bans drilling, adds carbon taxes, gas taxes, emission controls on exploration and production, along with refining and processing, eliminates tax deductions on tangible and intangible drilling costs, capital expenditures and the investment into R&D dropping along with bank regulations on climate change and social justice, our reliance on crude oil imports from Saudi Arabia will climb.

So, as Iran becomes stronger, its surrogates are unleashed in the Middle East

.

 

 

 give Iran lots of cash to comply with the 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE GREEN NEW DEAL: Democrats to pay for it with HUNTER BIDEN MONEY = No experience and fuck everyone else and enrich a close circle around you!

THE GREEN NEW DEAL in a nutshell......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE GREEN NEW DEAL: What brain dead and nappy hair, who is in charge have agreed to do between now and 2025 to 2030, China and India started laughing and said YO YO YOU GO GIRL, WE WILL NOT BE PARTICIPATING!

I don’t mind if she likes getting fucked but I do mind she is fucking the rest of use...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Where do you get this stuff?

Where do I get what stuff? I'm not sure what 'stuff' you're referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, JoMack said:

Nope, I didn't say insanity will cause $5.00 moves in the price of oil.  I said the $5.00 movement was somewhat troubling and here's why.

$60.00 a barrel WTI is a magic number for drilling and exploration, yet the Baker Hughes rig count is only 438, down from 728 last year when oil prices were lower or close to that range.  The 60 day moratorium on leasing and permitting on federal lands onshore and offshore is now into 100 days and the DOI Secretary Haaland just banned coal leasing.  Production in the U.S. is down over 2 million barrels, and Biden is going back into the Iranian Nuclear Deal in all likelihood, and now Hamas is rising again in the Gaza Strip with hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to the Palestinians from the Biden Administration.   Russia now has 100,000 troops on the border of Ukraine and Biden is adding sanctions and Putin may be pushed into retaliating against the U.S. and it may perhaps be through military action or blockade of imports to the US.  With Biden embracing Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia are being severely impacted by Biden's actions and both nations have the power to strangle U.S. energy supplies. The EIA recently stated the following (World Oil):

U.S. will import 62% more crude by 2022 due to domestic production declines, says EIA

As Biden bans drilling, adds carbon taxes, gas taxes, emission controls on exploration and production, along with refining and processing, eliminates tax deductions on tangible and intangible drilling costs, capital expenditures and the investment into R&D dropping along with bank regulations on climate change and social justice, our reliance on crude oil imports from Saudi Arabia will climb.

So, as Iran becomes stronger, its surrogates are unleashed in the Middle East

.

 

 

 give Iran lots of cash to comply with the 

 

Let’s stick to oil for a moment. You do realize we are going through a pandemic. Do you know that horizontal drilling tech has advanced to where a well is 6x more productive and has increased oil reserves exponentially. Those are a couple of factors covering rig counts and available drilling areas. 
I read that most drillers have a backlog of permits and only a small percentage are affected at this time. Just what I read. You give me the statistical breakdown. 
Now Biden killing that pipeline from Canada should help US producers. Just like government land with no permits should help the majority of drillers who buy private land. Biden political moves will help the majority of US oil drillers especially in the short term.

If your worried about filling US refining capacity I have a suggestion. Foreign owned refiners equal around 30% of US refining capacity. Hell, let’s just shut a few of them down. It’s not like we need most of them for US consumption.

First you worry about production and rig counts. You also worry about imports. Then you jump to government land and pipeline issues which helps the producers you claim need more rigs. Do you know what you want? Other than to bitch about a Dem. I think we got that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, JoMack said:

Nope, I didn't say insanity will cause $5.00 moves in the price of oil.  I said the $5.00 movement was somewhat troubling and here's why.

$60.00 a barrel WTI is a magic number for drilling and exploration, yet the Baker Hughes rig count is only 438, down from 728 last year when oil prices were lower or close to that range.  The 60 day moratorium on leasing and permitting on federal lands onshore and offshore is now into 100 days and the DOI Secretary Haaland just banned coal leasing.  Production in the U.S. is down over 2 million barrels, and Biden is going back into the Iranian Nuclear Deal in all likelihood, and now Hamas is rising again in the Gaza Strip with hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to the Palestinians from the Biden Administration.   Russia now has 100,000 troops on the border of Ukraine and Biden is adding sanctions and Putin may be pushed into retaliating against the U.S. and it may perhaps be through military action or blockade of imports to the US.  With Biden embracing Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia are being severely impacted by Biden's actions and both nations have the power to strangle U.S. energy supplies. The EIA recently stated the following (World Oil):

 

Seems to me that rig count won't increase until the DUC supply goes down some: https://www.worldoil.com/magazine/2021/april-2021/features/us-operators-working-down-duc-backlog

Perhaps the market is underpricing geopolitical risk. I dunno. 

Btw, what's 62% of a small number? A small number:

eia-02-17-2021.png.7411532a4cd3199b9179926cda6c6076.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think it’s not happening, Check out the CANCELLATION of sales and leases on Federal Lands, The Blue State governor’s who have shut down facilities!

wake up, What’s reported is so far behind what is happening!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2021 at 11:26 AM, Meredith Poor said:

divided by 640 acres per square mile is 32812.5 square miles.
Square root of 32812.5 is a square sized 181 Miles East/West x 181 miles North/South.

'In the last decade'? Oil and gas has been leasing public land since the 1930's.

Anyone care to research the total area of the 'Nevada test site'? This is a radioactive wasteland less than 100 miles from Las Vegas.

The Permian basin is, by coincidence, about 180 miles x 180 miles.

Google maps has a 'Measure Distance' option, so one can draw a square around the Permian or other area to get an idea of the scale of a square 180 miles on a side.

Huge numbers are convenient for propaganda purposes. When one puts them in context, and particularly in comparison to other practices that have gone on for much longer, people realize what sort of manipulation is intended by the assertions.

What stuff?  There is no comparison between the two types of land use.

Oil extraction does not interfere with surface use for agriculture, as I pointed out to you with respect to the Bakken area.

Unlike wind mills, which disrupt agriculture and livestock.

What made you think of equivalence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

17 hours ago, surrept33 said:

Well, part of it is accounting for things that have previously not been accounted for. 

For example, the government just reintroduced the social cost of carbon:

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/03/01/biden-administration-sets-social-cost-of-carbon-at-51-per-ton/

The Obama administration had introduced this,  but the Trump administration had set it to an absurdly small number and cancelled any discussions on setting a fair price.

So ultimately, it shifted towards states and many companies internally adopted carbon accounting. 

Many large energy companies do not mind because it helps them internally justify investments in things like CCS and it keeps investors happy.

For no good reason. The absurd notion that CO2 is some sort of a "pollutant" is a product of notoriously bad science.

Atmospheric CO2 is essential to maintain agricultural productivity and a green planet. I guess that basic truth has not penetrated the White House under the new guys.

I like how they just skipped the public debate on the larger issues...like, oh, it's obvious. Some joke.

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

 

Unlike wind mills, which disrupt agriculture and livestock.

 

Do you have any evidence for that claim? 

I only find evidence of positive benefits from multiple research projects. Such as:

This paper investigates the net impacts of sizable wind farms on local crop yields and agricultural activities at the farm level by using a new IV approach. I find that soybean and corn yields increase by roughly 1.3 and 2.4 percent, respectively, given an additional 50 MW of wind capacity installed in the same county. The induced microclimate changes are likely main contributors to these increases, as my results also show that the development of wind energy has significant impacts on local meteorological variables but does not measurably change farm operations. Moreover, I also find that farms can obtain most benefits gained from the higher crop yields as returns to labor and management. The aggregate benefits from this unanticipated positive externality of wind energy on agricultural production are fairly large in Illinois

https://ace.illinois.edu/sites/ace.illinois.edu/files/JMP_V6_upload_V2_0.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

For no good reason. The absurd notion that CO2 is some sort of a "pollutant" is a product of notoriously bad science.

Atmospheric CO2 is essential to maintain agricultural productivity and a green planet. I guess that basic truth has not penetrated the White House under the new guys.

I like how they just skipped the public debate on the larger issues...like, oh, it's obvious. Some joke.

The public debate is over. You lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Do you have any evidence for that claim? 

I only find evidence of positive benefits from multiple research projects. Such as:

This paper investigates the net impacts of sizable wind farms on local crop yields and agricultural activities at the farm level by using a new IV approach. I find that soybean and corn yields increase by roughly 1.3 and 2.4 percent, respectively, given an additional 50 MW of wind capacity installed in the same county. The induced microclimate changes are likely main contributors to these increases, as my results also show that the development of wind energy has significant impacts on local meteorological variables but does not measurably change farm operations. Moreover, I also find that farms can obtain most benefits gained from the higher crop yields as returns to labor and management. The aggregate benefits from this unanticipated positive externality of wind energy on agricultural production are fairly large in Illinois

https://ace.illinois.edu/sites/ace.illinois.edu/files/JMP_V6_upload_V2_0.pdf

Jay, the very first sentence of your supposedly objective study is the following, "wind energy is important for climate goals"...oh, yah.

So this is a strongly biased study which is designed to support the case for wind energy.

It does not give a complete context examination of the issue and excludes anything which argues the other way.

Just the sort of thing which I would expect you to dredge up for us.....thank you for running true to form again, Jay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The public debate is over. You lost.

The public debate was avoided, and it will not go away, Jay, until the alternative models are tested and the loser is discarded.

I think that the works I cited for you indicate which model will emerge the winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Jay, the very first sentence of your supposedly objective study is the following, "wind energy is important for climate goals"...oh, yah.

So this is a strongly biased study which is designed to support the case for wind energy.

It does not give a complete context examination of the issue and excludes anything which argues the other way.

Just the sort of thing which I would expect you to dredge up for us.....thank you for running true to form again, Jay.

You still haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that wind turbines have a negative effect on agriculture. Thanks for staying true to form with your unsubstantiated claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

57 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

For no good reason. The absurd notion that CO2 is some sort of a "pollutant" is a product of notoriously bad science.

Atmospheric CO2 is essential to maintain agricultural productivity and a green planet. I guess that basic truth has not penetrated the White House under the new guys.

I like how they just skipped the public debate on the larger issues...like, oh, it's obvious. Some joke.

That cost was just the baseline from the end of the Obama administration adjusted for inflation. There will be a public debate on what to set it to. I'm guessing higher to align with CO2 reduction goals. 

There is an argument that it should be set much higher because of uncertainty: https://www.ft.com/content/e144719e-0dcb-11e5-aa7b-00144feabdc0

Edited by surrept33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.