Category Archives: Coal

Mr President, You Owe American An Apology.


Rebloging a posting from Oilpro.com titled “Mr. President, you owe America an apology. We did drill our way to $2 gas.”  

The President has done about everything imaginable to make the price we pay for energy skyrocket. He has prevented drilling for oil on Federal lands but he obama-rising-gas-prices-cartoon-four-more-yearscould not do anything about State and private land. It is disgraceful that the media lets him get away with his retrospective claims that the lower prices were his doing. He even claimed he had approved oil being pipelined from Canada.

Anyway, Marita Noon tells of the misinformation that the President feeds to low information crowd.

cbdakota

‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’

MY PRESIDENT YOU OWE AMERICAN AN APOLOGY. WE DID DRILL OUR WAY TO $2.00 GAS.

“We can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices,” President Obama told an audience four years ago at the University of Miami. Like this year, it was an election year and Obama was running for re-election. Later in his speech, he added: “anybody who tells you that we can drill our way out of this problem doesn’t know what they’re talking about, or just isn’t telling you the truth.” He scoffed at the Republicans for believing that drilling would result in $2 gasoline—remember this was when prices at the pump, in many places, spiked to more than $4 a gallon: “You can bet that since it is an election year, they’re already dusting off their three-point plans for $2 gas. I’ll save you the suspense: Step one is drill, step two is drill, step three is drill.”

Well, Mr. President, you owe America, and the Republicans, an apology. Your snarky comments were wrong. The Republican’s supposed three-point plan, which you mocked, was correct.

Continue reading

4 Major Warmers Change Their Mind And Now Back Building Nukes


Back when there was temporary shortage of natural gas, that fossil fuel was the favorite of warmers. When it became abundant, they were against it.   They just pretend to be even handed. Well what about nuclear energy? It doesn’t produce carbon dioxide (CO2) but they do not like it. My guess is that many of them are just following through on their objective of destroying capitalism.

However, a group of influential warmers now say they were wrong to oppose nuclear energy.

At the Paris COP21 in December 2015, a press conference was held where 4 noted warmers announced that they were going to back development of nuclear energy.

Continue reading

Germany’s Renewables Can Only Provide 11% Of Their Rated Capacity


Here is a look at the German renewable energy program. The NoTricksZone is a site that covers German media and reports it in English. The site is managed by Pierre Goselin and he recently posted “Two Great Destructive Lies German Leaders Refuse To Abandon”. The first of the two “lies” relates performance of wind and solar systems and it is that:

German renewable energies sun and wind are a success!”

germansolarwindcapvsactual

Continue reading

Why Not Make North America, the New Middle East?


Several years ago, a study done by the Manhattan Institute titled “ Unleashing the North American Energy Colossus: Hydrocarbons Can Fuel Growth and Prosperity”, by Mark P Mills pointed out that we have the capability to replace the Middle East as the major source of crude oil.  This, he says, would be of shaleoilhuge economic benefit to the US, Canada and Mexico. Something like $7 trillion dollars of value over the next 15 or 20 years.

Mills argues that the problems with becoming the New Middle East are political, not geological nor technological. One of the political roadblocks was resolved when the latest Federal budget bill was enacted. The bill included the removal of the prohibition against selling US crude oil on the world market. That prohibition had stood since the Nixon Administration.

While the Executive Summary that follows is probably enough for most readers,  Mill’s full report, some twenty pages in length, can be read by clicking here.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The United States, Canada, and Mexico are awash in hydrocarbon resources: oil, natural gas, and coal. The total North American hydrocarbon resource base is more than four times greater than all the resources extant in the Middle East. And the United States alone is now the fastest-growing producer of oil and natural gas in the world.

The recent growth in hydrocarbons production has already generated hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in local tax receipts by unlocking billions of barrels of oil and natural gas in the hydrocarbon-dense shales of North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and several other states, as well as the vast resources of Canada’s oil sands.

It is time to appreciate the staggering potential economic and geopolitical benefits that facilitating the development of these resources can bring to the United States. It is no overstatement to say that jobs related to extraction, transport, and trade of hydrocarbons can awaken the United States from its economic doldrums and produce revenue such that key national needs can be met—including renewal of infrastructure and investment in scientific research.

An affirmative policy to expand extraction and export capabilities for all hydrocarbons over the next two decades could yield as much as $7 trillion of value to the North American economy, with $5 trillion of that accruing to the United States, including generating $1–$2 trillion in tax receipts to federal and local governments. Such a policy would also create millions of jobs rippling throughout the economy. While it would require substantial capital investment, essentially all of that would come from the private sector.

The underlying paradigms embedded in American energy policy and regulatory structures are anchored in the idea of shortages and import dependence. A complete reversal in thinking is needed to orient North America around hydrocarbon abundance—and exports.

In collaboration with Canada and Mexico, the United States could—and should—forge a broad pro-development, pro-export policy to realize the benefits of our hydrocarbon resources. Such a policy could lead to North America becoming the largest supplier of fuel to the world by 2030. For the U.S., the single most effective policy change would be to emulate Canada’s solution for permitting major energy projects: create a one-portal, one-permit federal policy for all permits.

The recent preoccupation with technologies directed at creating alternatives to hydrocarbons misses how technology also unleashes alternative sources of hydrocarbons themselves. A number of detailed analyses of the new hydro- carbon realities have emerged, not least of which are excellent ones from Citi, Wood Mackenzie, IHS, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The authors of Citi’s detailed report “Energy 2020: North America, the New Middle East?” note that “[t]he main obstacles to developing a North American oil surplus are political rather than geological or technological.”

The projected growth in total world energy demand through 2030 is equal to an additional two Americas’ worth of consumption. Every credible forecast shows hydrocarbons fueling the major share of that growth, as they have in the past. While alternative energy has grown rapidly, the overall contribution to U.S. and world supply remains de minimus and stays that way in every credible future scenario.

There will doubtless be objections to the idea of a radical shift in policies and attitudes toward hydrocarbons. But the benefits to the U.S., to the rest of North America, and to the rest of the world are so dramatic and important that abandoning them without serious policy deliberations would be unconscionable.

cbdakota

 

12 Reasons To Be A Skeptic


James Delingpole is a Brit that writes for Brietbart.com. He has a sharp mind that he uses to take the obvious and throw it back at the pretenders often with good humor. Somewhat like Mark Steyn. They are a formidable pair and I am glad they are on our side.

The Delingpole posting that I want to discuss was written before the COP21 Paris meeting of the massive group of hanger-ons that go to these conferences on stopping global warming. But, the points he makes in this posting “Twelve Reasons Why The Paris Climate Talks Are A Total Waste” are essentially timeless within the current discussion of the catastrophic man-made global warming theory.

I may summarize the discussion in some of the twelve reasons. So I do recommend that you link to his original posting to read the reasons in their entirety. Don’t ignore the links that are included in this listing.

1   There has been no ‘global warming’ since 1997.

So, of all the children round the world currently being taught in schools about the perils of man-made global warming, not a single one has lived through a period in which the planet was actually warming

Continue reading

The Perilous Business Of Predicting The Future


The National Review.com posted “Why Climate Change Won’t Matter in 20 Years”. They subtitled the posting “The perilous business of predicting the future.” The subtitle accurately depicts what happens when politicians or anyone for that matter, think they can safely make the future an extension of the present.

First of all, the warmers should be willing to take seriously the abject failure of their vaunted climate models to make prediction on any time frame. Yet they insist that the Earth in 2100 will be x degrees hotter and the sea level will be y meters higher than today because the climate models told them so. The odds are that they might do just as well talking to Madame Charmaine, the village palm reader.

The author of this posting, Josh Gelernter, put in a lot of effort into showing why projecting the present as a representation of the future is very unlikely to be successful. So I will let him speak:

“Michael Crichton — the brilliant novelist and thinker — posed this horsespulling streetcarquestion in a speech at Caltech in 2003, re climate predictions for 2100. What environmental problems would men in 1900 have predicted for 2000? Where to get enough horses, and what to do with all the manure. “Horse pollution was bad in 1900,” said Crichton. How much worse would someone in 1900 expect it to “be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?”

Continue reading

COP21: Renewables Will Not Be Able To Replace Fossil Fuels


A posting on WUWT by Willis Eschenbach titled “Thirty-Eight Years Of Subsidiesdemonstrates the failure of solar and wind energy to become  viable replacements for fossil fuels. Noting this failure is important because the COP 21 envisions reducing fossil fuel to only 20% of the globe’s energy supply by 2050. In some quarters, there are demands for completely eliminating fossil fuel use by that date. Could this really happen?

Continue reading

Flashback To ABC 2009 Special On Climate Change–See Their 2015 Predictions.


gwpredictions_cartoonThanks to the Daily Caller we can enter into the minds of the radical warmers and their surrogates, the national media. The Daily Caller posted “Flashback: ABC News Envisioned Apocalyptic 2015 Triggered By Climate Change”. Using the “best” minds on the planet to graphically display the terror that climate change will cause, ABC ran a special in 2009 called “Earth 2100 “. The special follows a baby girl born in 2009 through her life span with stops along the way to describe how the planet was suffering through the effects of climate change.   The first stop was 2015. You may wonder how you are missing all of these tragic happenings that the warmer scientist say would happen in 2015. But it is more likely that being a rational human, you will realize, once again, how far from the truth the great prognosticators are. These people have not changed since 2009. They just keep restarting their “end of the earth” smoke and mirrors” narratives, ignoring the need to apologize for how bad their last prediction was.

The Daily Caller quotes from the special:

“ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff says the show “puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015.”  A Harvard University professor says, “We’re going to see more floods, more droughts, more wildfires.”  Other voices can be heard saying that “Flames cover hundreds of square mile” and “We expect more intense hurricanes.” Another voice says, “Well, how warm is it going to get? How much will sea level rise? We don’t know really know where the end is.”

 

Continue reading

Global Temperature Only Lowered By 0.01C. Is It Worth All The Pain?


President Obama unveiled the “Clean Power Plan” prepared by the EPA. It claims much but testimony EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, gave at a Congressional hearing make those claims very questionable. She does not dispute that global temperature will only be lowered by 0.01degree C., — we goreandhairdryermust set the example for the rest of the world, she says. But 8 months ago, Obama agreed to China increasing their CO2 until 2030 at which time it will be three times greater than our emissions. What kind of example is that? The health improvements are touted but many are based on “secret science” that she wont let anyone see outside the agency. And some is based upon hypothetical set ups; hence, make-believe science. She was quoted as saying she “doesn’t actually need raw data in order to develop science. That’s not how it is done?” Since when, other than on Planet EPA?

Continue reading

Can We Trust The EPA?  Part 4– The Sue And Settle Scam


Have you heard of the Sue and Settle scam often used by the EPA? Generally the idea is for the EPA to ask some non-government , big green organization to sue Cartoon - EPA & Energythem regarding some piece of  legislation. The suit is settled by a consent decree where the EPA and the big environmental group achieved their shared goals. The court sets a deadline for comments from other interested parties that is so brief that no one can make meaningful comments in time to prevent legislation from becoming law.

Continue reading