Slashdot Mirror
Why We Have To Kiss Off Big Carbon Now
mdsolar writes When the fossil-fuel divestment movement first stirred on college campuses three years ago, you could almost hear Big Oil and Wall Street laughing. Crude prices were flirting with $100 a barrel, and domestic oil production, from Texas to North Dakota, was in the midst of a historic boom. But the quixotic campus campaign suddenly has the smell of smart money.
One of the biggest names in the history of Big Oil – the Rockefellers – announced last September that they would be purging the portfolio of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund of 'risky' oil investments. And that risk has been underscored by the sudden collapse of the oil market. After cresting at more than $107 in mid-June, the price of a barrel of West Texas Intermediate dipped below $50 a barrel in early January. The crash carries big costs: Goldman Sachs warned that nearly $1 trillion in planned oil-field investments would be unprofitable – even if oil were to stabilize at $70 per barrel.
One of the biggest names in the history of Big Oil – the Rockefellers – announced last September that they would be purging the portfolio of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund of 'risky' oil investments. And that risk has been underscored by the sudden collapse of the oil market. After cresting at more than $107 in mid-June, the price of a barrel of West Texas Intermediate dipped below $50 a barrel in early January. The crash carries big costs: Goldman Sachs warned that nearly $1 trillion in planned oil-field investments would be unprofitable – even if oil were to stabilize at $70 per barrel.
only an idiot thinks prices will stay this low.
seriously, this happened in 2008 as well.
And here's the problem with free market capitalism. Now we have abandoned wellsites that nobody wants to cleanup, unemployed oil workers & related fields, and bankrupt communities that were struggling to build infrastructure during the boom now have empty roads & schools. Give it 10-15 years and we'll start the cycle all over again. This carries across to other markets, we've seen it before with the steel belt turning into the rust belt.
Yes, the free market fixes it, but not until the damage is done. You end up with an economic system where capital is rushing from one end to other at the expense of labor. It's like some new era of hunter/gathering nomads; you have people following the buffalo around.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or if you really are an actual retard.
Greed breeds myopia. Always has. Did people investing heavily in oil really think it would either keep going up, or sustain at the price peaks it was at for years? At those prices, it's all but strangling the economy. It started to actually effect just how much people drove!
And there's the problem. Oil is still king of the economy. From home energy, to the dinner table. Oil is still king. I think a good many investors forgot who just has the real power in the world. Guess the Saudis thought they should remind them.
The frustrating thing with this though, is that we still won't see the prices drop at the grocery or market, even though it's cheaper to ship goods and produce. Why pass savings onto the consumer, when you can pad the profit margin for the quarter, and stock-holders. I think a lot of people forget that, milk, bread, fruit, etc... should all be a little cheaper at the moment. It won't be.
The many thousands of wells that are/were planned for completion will simply be postponed until the market responds more favorably, but don't kid yourself, they will become feasible again at some point.
Lower energy costs will fuel the self same economic recovery that will drive World prices back into the realm of profitability.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
1) By definition, there is a finite supply of non-renewable energy.
2) And we use tons of it.
3) And for the good of humanity you want the price to be HIGH
Reasons you want the price to be high for fossil fuels:
1) Conversation of the resource. Airplanes must use fossil fuels the way they are designed now. Cars = no. You can have electric cars.
2) When the price of fossil fuels is low, they get wasted. Your neighbor who drives alone and isn't a farmer buying a huge truck is NOT how non-renewable energy should be used.
3) Complacency about alternative energy because the price of gas is low isn't a positive.
I am sure there are a lot of "lefty partisans" who are enjoying this because they dislike Big Oil -- and to that extent, it more proves that it isn't about results with partisans, it is about their "team". If the price of oil drops like a rock, there is a bit of financial relief but what really happens is consumption sky-rockets.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or if you really are an actual retard.
Are you an environmentalist? Do you drive a car, fly on jets for vacation trips? Do you drive cars on road trips? If so, then you do not practice what you preach. If you believe carbon credits in any way benefit the environment then I have a bridge to sell you.
Live your life the way you preach to others before you preach.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
The reason is not as simple as "increased supply". The reason that there is that increase in supply is because the Saudis and OPEC want alternative methods of extraction, such as the U.S.'s hydraulic fracking, to be unprofitable.. and it is, with oil prices this low.
Grow up, and learn how the world really works.
Nobody is going to come back with a half way narrative, a compromised view of global warming for you to sign up to. Nobody is going to say: "Oh I see you won't agree that 5 degrees of warming is too much - let's say 7.5 degrees is the acceptable limit, deal?" Neither is the issue just going to quietly go away if you ignore it for long enough. It's a simple, brutal fact - the warming just keeps getting more and more obvious.
Grow up, get over it, and get on with it.
Otherwise, you can wait for us to get angry enough to sue you for the damage you've caused, take your stuff, and use the funds to make the necessary changes.
How bout them apples?
I do not see where he was denying anythng. Perhaps you are confused and think that anyone who does not toe a line in the most favorable way possible for the position you hold dear equates to denialism. But reality works differently. Nothing he said was untrue. Both are a lot about control.
Don't kid yourself. We may not all be pool-in-backyard-trip-to-Europe-every-year rich, but most readers of Slashdot are very firmly rooted in the middle class. This has little effect on us at all, we're neither investors, nor are we so destitute that the fuel bills are threatening to throw us to the curb. The smug, conceited "welp, I drive a Tesla S and think everyone should" is completely uncalled for, the poor drive shitwagons, all of which *gasp* run on petroleum. This will very much work in their favour, keep your electric car, but don't be a smug prick just because you can afford it.
I wondered when Saudi Arabia decided not to cut production, dooming OPEC to low prices and ticking off the likes of Russia and other producers with marginal economies, if they where not actually working a long term strategy here. Why are they not cutting production?
First, they repress many of the world's trouble makers by dropping prices to 1/3rd their original. Yes, they hurt some emerging producers who are good guys, but these are pretty small. Russia's economy is in free fall due to this and this will greatly diminish their military and economic ability world wide. Other "bad guys" are getting hurt too.
Second, The will succeed in jumpstarting their largest consumer's economy. The USA has suffered under the burden of higher taxes and higher fuel prices (which amounts to a tax on just about everything.) Yea, there will be segments that suffer, energy production companies and those who own the production facilities will be hurt, but over all your average consumer will have more to spend and moving goods will be cheaper as fuel prices drop.
Third, energy production companies who where looking at $100+ oil for as far as the eye could see just 6 months ago, are now looking at $45 or less. Much of their production is now netting below production costs so NOBODY will be drilling new wells and a whole bunch of companies will be hurting. For the most speculative of them they will go bankrupt in fairly short time. This will greatly depress the USA's ability to develop these resources and reduce future supplies and take years to rebuild the industry.
I'm not saying this is what the Saudi's are up to, but the theory does fit the pieces I'm seeing fall together..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I doubt that is true. I think the Obama administration and Saudi Arabia are colluding to inflict economic harm on Russia and Iran. That it hurts the US domestic oil industry is simply a nice side effect for Saudi Arabia and a political win for some of Obama's constituency. While it may seriously slow or eliminate fracking in the short term it will also increase consumption so I also doubt there were any environmental considerations here.
The best reason I can imagine for conserving our not infinite petroleum reserve is the future... we don't know what it holds in store for us, and we do not have a viable alternative for petroleum products worked out as yet for every variable.
Imagine our grandchildren with the tech to go universe-hopping, lacking only the fuel.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
eh, cows eat grass. that's green as it gets
Here's a tip....
Post an example of where Fracking has destroyed a water supply...
I recognize that it is impossible to prove a negative, but the scientific evidence is all pointing the other way here. Not to mention common sense if you understand how this process works..... Fracking takes place thousands of feet down, below impermeable rock, well below any water supply. What gets pumped down there is not coming back up except though the well head it went down. Anybody telling you otherwise has no proof, that I know of anyway.
Do YOU have any evidence for your position beyond the wild claims of the environmentalists who started this lie?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
But that 1-2% number of yours is basically the risk of drilling, not fracking. Now if you wan to argue that drilling carries risk, that you can prove easily and I'm not arguing that. I'm saying FRACKING is not causing any increase in risk for an already drilled well. It's a fine point I know, but it's important to make the distinction, because the public doesn't feel that drilling is a huge dangerous health hazard because we've been doing it for more than 100 years and it's not all that dangerous. Fracking doesn't add to the enviromental danger of drilling, it just increases the recoverable supplies from the wells that we drill....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
It's a little of everything, but I really don't think there's that much subterfuge in it. The US and Canada (and some others) have massively increased oil supply through harnessing shale oil deposits. Saudi Arabia isn't just going to pump less oil out of the ground because we are pumping more. They have bills and lifestyles to maintain so they're going to keep their production levels up. If everyone has combined to increase supply, prices will go down. The prices will equalize at a level that shuts down enough of the expensive wells to bring supply down to match demand. If that point shuts down a lot of US shale oil production in favor of the Saudis, I'm sure they are fine with that. If that point inflicts economic harm on Iran and Russia I'm sure the US is fine with that.
I'm sure the Saudis also realize that they need to sell their oil now not in the future. Of all the possibilities for the future, the one they will like the least is the one where oil is completely replaced by other sources of energy. If you are looking at a risk of selling oil for $0 in the future, selling it for any profitable amount today is preferable.
CO2 increases do raise temps. Methane increases do the same. Perhaps not buy a huge amount but at least you agree they do have effect. Water vapor is largely driven by temperature. So the small increase of CO2/methane causes increase in water vapor concentrations....Which causes a large increase as you so deftly note. Now that increase causes more increase. It's called a feedback loop for a reason.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Who has more money. Al Gore or the Koch Brothers? And yet the Koch Brothers can't seem to buy even 4% of scientists? If you're claiming scientists are 'bought', then why exactly aren't they singing the tune of the highest bidders?
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Shale is fracking. It's how they are extracting said oil, by breaking the shale with injection wells. It's used for both gas and oil.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
That is a good point however, consider the following:
- Tight oil fields (ie, the Baaken) need many more wells drilled than 'conventional' oil. Each well increases the risk of bore failure.
- The states where much of the frakking is currently happening (remember we've been frakking stuff for 50 years or so) have a history of poor regulatory supervision of the process. Texas and Louisiana have been bitten bad in the past and have tightened up drilling regulations such that they have very few bad wellbores. The other states, not so much. Why those states didn't just borrow the time tested regulations is an interesting question.
So, you're point that the actually hydraulic fracturing of a given well is unlikely to cause aquifer damage is a good one. It's a bit pedantic since most people consider the entire process as 'frakking'. It's pretty clear that frakking in tight oil plays does increase the risk for aquifer damage. Again, it's really annoying that the bad actors screw things up for everybody. In a way, there are parallels to nuclear power. If done correctly risks are low and manageable. However, doing things correctly yields an economic penalty. Some folks will try to take advantage of that, usually for minimal short term gain. So the entire industry gets pilloried.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Don't be completely ridiculous. I am an environmentalist, but I don't think for one second that if I stop driving or flying on jets that everyone else will stop and the problem will be solved. That's why we have laws against littering and polluting. It doesn't matter whether I set a good example. People will still say "Screw you, Hippie. I love my Hummer and Gulfstream." It *does* matter how I vote, what I say to my representatives, and how I participate to change the system. Your admonition to "Live your life the way you preach to others before you preach." is quaint but irrelevant in our society. Following current laws while advocating different and improved laws is not a lie, not hypocritcal, and not communist. For someone who has a sig devoted to Jesus, you sure like to call people offensive names. And I don't see how advocating giving all your possessions to the poor and following a homeless man is really the hallmark of a social conservative. Most social conservatives I know would say to Jesus: "Get a job, Hippie!"
Problem is the NVAP program hasnt shown an increase in water vapour.
The slight warming we are experiencing seems to be only from climate sensitivity to CO2 and that sensitivity is on the low side of the models, very very low.
The average Chinese citizen uses 1/3rd as much carbon as the average American. So before you criticize China get your emissions down to their level.
3) And for the good of humanity you want the price to be HIGH Z
Well someone sure is ignoring history!!
Because the cheaper energy of any form has been cheap, the better lives people led. That includes environmentally...
With more power you have more education, more industry, more jobs, more success period. With all that comes more leisure time which means more free time to devote to a healthy Earth.
If you want the best for "humanity" you want cheap energy - from any source.
Renewables will come along, but you can increase viability only so quickly. Until then don't screw people over my artificially limiting their access to energy.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So arguing that there is no global warming, that the global warming has stopped, that it is not man-made or that it is a non-issue, because it will actually benefit us, is seen as some way of defending Freedom[tm], and many libertarian leaning people and a lot of conservative ones feel a mission to cast doubt on solid science, because defending Freedom is always good work, right? And because the science itself is quite solid (we can actually measure the heat trapping properties of different levels of the components in the atmosphere, and we have a good way to estimate the amount of carbon dioxide and methane we release in the atmosphere), the doubt is cast either on the researchers (they are accused to have an agenda, they are called liars, they are suspected to conspire against us all...), or on the immediate conclusions. Models are called misleading, every new discovery how to more correctly assess an effect gets hailed as proof that the evil climate scientists are wrong again etc.pp..
Try to separate the science and the politics! And yes, denying the science on whatever level is at first an attempt to politice the science.
This is why I've been pushing to argue in favor of reducing fossil fuel use not from an environmental point of view, but from an economic one. People can bury their heads in the sand when it comes to science, but people always listen when money is involved.
Even though the US imports about a third of our petroleum, that's still equivalent to hundreds of billions of dollars per year leaving our economy. If we transition to renewable energies, that money stays around a bit longer.
Renewable energies might have a larger up-front capital cost (but not by much, and it's getting better every day), but the long term costs are overwhelmingly favorable.
With the current crash in oil prices it should be clear that our economy is in the hands of foreign interests. We are hostages to international petroleum markets. Let's develop domestic sources to free ourselves from foreign influence. Remember: There's no reason why oil couldn't have been this cheap all along, and the price only went down right when we were posed to start reducing imports in favor of domestic natural gas production. We're being played!
(Oh, and if we happen to mitigate the environmental damage we're doing in the process and avoid global catastrophe, I guess that'll be a bonus...)
=Smidge=