Category Archives: Fossil Fuels

100% NET ZERO RENEWABLE ENERGY FAILURE PUTS SPAIN AND PORTUGAL ON TOTAL LOSS OF ELECTRIC POWER-MORE TO COME ON GREEN ENERGY INSANITY

Spain’s big blackout came less than week after it went full green on electricity

Spain and Portugal achieved net zero on Monday, but not the way anyone would want to achieve net zero: By going back to the cave people times with no electricity.

According to the New York Times:

A major power outage hit Spain and Portugal on Monday afternoon, abruptly shutting down daily activities, halting trains and subways, cutting off traffic lights, closing stores and canceling or delaying some flights.

Hours after the power shut off around 12:30 p.m. Central European time, stranding tens of millions of people across the Iberian Peninsula, officials remained at a loss as to the cause, though several denied any foul play.

“At this point, there are no indications of any cyberattack,” António Costa, the president of the European Council, wrote on X after communicating with the leaders of Spain and Portugal, who both assembled emergency meetings. “Grid operators in both countries are working on finding the cause and on restoring the electricity supply.”

Their whole society was disrupted, and no one knows exactly why as of yet.

According to Politico Europe:

The massive blackout that left the Iberian Peninsula in the dark on Monday appears to have been sparked by the unexplained disappearance 15 gigawatts of power from Spain’s electricity grid.

“This has never happened before,” said a grave-looking Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez at a press conference late on Monday evening. “And what caused it is something that the experts have not yet established — but they will.”

He added that “no hypothesis has been rejected, and every possible cause is being investigated.”

How does anyone “lose” 15 gigawatts of electricity, accounting for about 60% of Spain’s consumption at the time?

Sure, they are looking into a cyberattack, or a terrorist act, or a rare weather event involving magnetic fields, or maybe some bad maintenance, and they should. But they have gone remarkably quiet lately, making one think of the one possibility they might want to be quiet about.

The blackout was unprecedented, and it happened just shortly after this happened:

They went completely to wind and solar and as a result, got this.

Michael Shellenberger, who’s an expert on science matters, thinks this is the most likely case as do a lot of us, given the sudden reticience of public officials:

They have reasons to be reticient — having promoted green energy for years, forcing Spaniards and others to give up their fossil fuels, for the greenie ‘wave of the future.

That wave, as it turns out, involves begging Morocco for an electricity bailout and living like cave people, without even access to their own money.

If authorities, who promoted this greenie model can’t admit this, then Spain will have many more of these “net-zero” days. This is the green future the left has been promoting around the world, and it’s primitive.

FAKE CLIMATE COSTS ARE CONSTANTLY BLAMING BIG OIL FOR TRILLIONS IN LOST WEALTH BY CONSUMERS–WHAT A CROCK OF BS!…

Media shows no scrutiny of study claiming oil companies made the world $28 trillion poorer

These articles made no mention that the methodology used in the study that spawned considerable coverage was developed for the purpose of supporting climate lawsuits against oil companies. The study’s authors also worked with a lawyer who works at Sher Edling, a law firm that stands to profit from climate litigation.

A new study published in the journal Nature concludes that the world would be $28 trillion richer if we hadn’t used fossil fuels. Were it not for the “extreme heat” fossil fuel companies are causing, the researchers from Dartmouth College explain, we’d have a much wealthier planet.

With such dramatic conclusions, multiple outlets in the legacy media breathlessly reported the findings. A report in CBS News quotes celebrity climate scientist Michael Mann supporting this type of research. A D.C. court recently sanctioned Mann in his libel suit against two bloggers, saying he “acted in bad faith when they presented erroneous evidence and made false representations to the jury and the Court.” CBS News’ report makes no mention of this.

“Extreme weather events continue disrupt [sic] communities and strain finances,” a report on the study in The New York Times states. The lead paragraph in a report in the Associated Press compares using fossil fuels, which are the basis for over 80% of the globe’s energy and thousands of consumer products, to using tobacco. The study, Associated Press climate reporter Seth Borenstein claims, will “make it easier for people and governments to hold companies financially accountable.”

These articles fail to mention that the methodology used in the study wasn’t developed by impartial researchers dedicated to following science. The methodology, it turns out, was developed by anti-fossil fuel activists whose aim is to support climate lawsuits against oil companies. The study’s authors also consulted with a lawyer who works at a law firm that stands to profit from climate litigation.

“Attribution science” designed for lawsuits but robust

The study’s conclusion is based on what’s called “attribution science,” which was developed by a group of climate activists specifically to help advance litigation against oil companies. One of the leading organizations driving this approach is the World Weather Attribution (WWA) initiative. In an article about the field, its co-founder, climatologist Friederike Otto told Politico in 2019, “Unlike every other branch of climate science or science in general, event attribution was actually originally suggested with the courts in mind.”

Otto explained in a Concordia University interview last year that this field of science is part of a legal strategy to arm plaintiffs in lawsuits against oil companies with a scientific basis for their complaints. The Associated Press article quotes Otto, who didn’t take part in the Dartmouth study, stating that “all the methods they [the Dartmouth researchers] use are robust.” The reporter then characterized the WWA as a “collection of scientists who try rapid attribution studies to see if specific extreme weather events are worsened by climate change.”

In 2022, the Associated Press received $8 million in funding from anti-fossil fuel advocacy groups, including the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Quadrivium, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation. The outlet said that these are just “philanthropy partners,” and it maintains editorial control over its content.

White men need not apply

In an interview in a British feminist publication Womanthology, Otto argued that it’s important to have women doing climate research: “Who ‘does science’ is a hugely important issue, so if climate change is worked on exclusively by white men, it means that the questions asked are those that are relevant to white men.”

“But people most affected by climate change are not white men” he said, “so if all these other people are effectively excluded from the scientific process, the problems we have to face in climate change will not be properly addressed and you will not find solutions for how to best transform a society,” Otto said.

Otto didn’t explain how extreme weather events — whether they’re impacted by carbon dioxide emissions or not — specifically seek out people according to their gender and race.

Attempts to distribute blame company by company

On his “The Honest Broker” Substack, Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., retired professor of environmental science at the University of Colorado-Boulder, explained that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations consortium of the world’s leading climate researchers, disputes that single events can be attributed to climate change.

“Scientists cannot answer directly whether a particular event was caused by climate change, as extremes do occur naturally, and any specific weather and climate event is the result of a complex mix of human and natural factors. Instead, scientists quantify the relative importance of human and natural influences on the magnitude and/or probability of specific extreme weather events,” the IPCC states in its AR6 report.

The Dartmouth study attempts to distribute blame on how specific oil companies have allegedly contributed to the claimed $28 trillion in damages globally. According to the study, Chevron caused as much as $3.6 trillion in “heat-related losses” between 1991 and 2020. ExxonMobil is, according to the study, responsible for $1.91 trillion and adds that Saudi Aramco is responsible for $2.05 trillion.

The lead researcher of the Dartmouth study, Dr. Christopher Callahan, told Just the News that it is an “unfortunate misreading of the IPCC’s conclusion.” “Our research does not argue that a given heat wave was entirely caused by an emitter, but that emitters have increased the intensity of a heat wave that may have occurred naturally,” he said.

Callahan noted that the IPCC also states that “scientists can now quantify the contribution of human influences to the magnitude and probability of many extreme events,” and that “attributable increases in probability and magnitude have been identified consistently for many hot extremes.”

“Our findings are entirely in line with this consensus,” Callahan said.

Tactical science

In his article, Pielke wrote that attribution science was developed as a response to the failure of the IPCC’s conventional approach to reach a high degree of confidence with detection and attribution of trends in the frequency and intensity of most types of extreme weather events. Pielke argues that climate change due to human activities does pose a risk and shouldn’t be ignored. However, he wrote, “The importance of climate change as an issue does not mean that we can or should ignore scientific integrity.”

Pielke calls attribution science a form of “tactical science,” which is research done specifically in service to political and legal aims. He said such research is not necessarily bad research, but because it serves an agenda, it deserves greater scrutiny, especially by journalists reporting on these studies and especially those studies that aren’t peer-reviewed.

For example, the WWA produced a study claiming that last year’s deadly Hurricane Helene was made 500 times more likely due to carbon dioxide emissions. CNN reported on the study but never mentioned it wasn’t peer-reviewed. The Dartmouth study was peer-reviewed.

Feedback from interested parties

The researchers of the Dartmouth study consulted with a lawyer from a firm representing plaintiffs who are suing oil companies. The acknowledgments list Michael Burger, a lawyer of counsel at Sher Edling. The firm is heavily involved in litigation against oil companies, particularly lawsuits that blame them for damages stemming from weather-related events.

The firm has been accused of being part of a dark money campaign, The Washington Free Beacon reported, and it was the focus of a Congressional probe in 2023, seeking more information on the “wealthy liberals” who are funding the lawsuits “aimed at bankrupting oil and gas companies.”

Callahan, the lead researcher of the Dartmouth study, said he and co-author Dr. Justin Mankin are solely responsible for the entire article. He said the research benefited from feedback from many people, including litigants and judges.

“Neither of us are involved in climate litigation, and we do not stand to financially gain from these lawsuits,” Callahan said.

Training judges

The Dartmouth study also acknowledges participants in the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP), an initiative by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI). While the project bills itself as a neutral organization providing “training” to judges overseeing proceedings in climate cases, a report last year from the American Energy Institute (AEI) argued that CJP is influencing judges in favor of the plaintiffs in these cases.

The ELI told Just the News in September that the AEI report is “full of misinformation,” and insisted it doesn’t take stances on individual cases or advocate for specific outcomes.

The Dartmouth study lists in the acknowledgments Jessica Wentz, associate director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, and also cites her research. The Sabin Center is affiliated with Columbia University’s Columbia Climate School and Columbia’s law school.

In 2016, Wentz helped coordinate a petition to the Philippines Commission on Human Rights requesting an investigation of human rights violations by the “carbon majors” — meaning oil companies — on the theory that they are causing climate change and the assumption that human rights laws are in play.

Today, oil companies, tomorrow, the world

It’s hard to square the Dartmouth study’s conclusions — which is that oil companies are costing society trillions — when the data show that in the time the globe has been exponentially increasing its use of fossil fuels, GDP has rapidly increased in that time.

Another point that critics have noted about the study is that it focuses solely on the alleged impacts of oil companies. Large emitters not included in the study include steel producers, auto manufacturers, utilities and cattle ranchers, but the study didn’t calculate how much wealthier the world would be without steel, cars, electricity and beef.

Callahan said that the research could later inform studies to go after other industries. “The goal of our research is to develop a flexible framework that can be applied to any emitter. Existing work has estimated emissions attributable to major fossil fuel firms, which includes gas, coal, oil, and some cement producers, and our research used these existing estimates as a starting point and proof-of-concept. Further research could easily apply our approach to electric utilities, the agricultural or transportation sectors, and so on,” he said.

Legal experts critical of climate litigation have warned that there’s nothing about the campaign that couldn’t eventually target every industry producing the products everyone consumes, as just about every large industry uses excessive amounts of energy, the bulk of which comes from fossil fuels. If these lawsuits are successful, critics explain, the billions in settlements will be passed down to consumers.

Multnomah County, Oregon, filed a lawsuit seeking damages from a heat dome event in 2021, which the county claims was the fault of oil companies. The event wasn’t the worst heat event in recorded history, which was 119 degrees set in 1898, long before large amounts of fossil fuels were being consumed. The county, however, blames oil companies for the 72 people that died during the 2021 event. In November, the county amended its complaint to add a natural gas utility to its list of defendants.

As this type of research develops, it’s likely the list of companies said to be costing us trillions in the course of providing consumers with the products they need or willingly buy and enjoy every day will expand.

$9 TRILLION WASTED ON STUPID RENEWABLE UNATTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PRODUCTION AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE!

Despite $9 trillion spent on net zero goals, fossil fuels to remain dominant energy source: report

Modern prosperity is tied to certain industrial products, including chemicals, steel, cement, food and paper, according to the J.P. Morgan report. Approximately 80% of the energy inputs for these products is fossil fuels.

While the legacy media often reports that the world is rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewable energy, a new report from J.P. Morgan shows that narrative is simply not correct. Since 2010, $9 trillion has been spent globally on wind, solar, electric vehicles energy storage, electrification and power grids, but despite this expensive effort — mostly at taxpayer expense — the share of final energy consumption by carbon-free energy sources is advancing by approximately a scant 0.3% to 0.6% per year.

Michael Cembalest, Chairman of Market and Investment Strategy for J.P. Morgan, explains in “Heliocentrism,” the 15th annual energy paper by the investment firm, that the reason fossil fuels remain the dominant source of energy is that modern prosperity is tied to certain kinds of industrial products, including chemicals, steel, cement, food and paper. Approximately 80% of the energy inputs for these products are fossil fuels. JPMorgan Chase is the world’s fifth largest bank by total assets, with $3.9 trillion as of 2023.

“As things stand now, modern prosperity is highly reliant on fossil fuels,” Cembalest said in a podcast on the report. Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., retired professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, estimates on his “The Honest Broker” Substack that at the current pace, the world will not be carbon free until sometime after the year 2200.

Solar accounts for 2% of total final energy

Cembalest notes that solar capacity, both utility scale and rooftop, is exploding and represents two-thirds of new generation capacity. It will reach about 75% of all new generation capacity for the rest of the decade.

“There’s a lot of people that are so focused on the growth in solar power that they believe that solar power, typically bolted on with some energy storage, can represent the dominant share of where we get our energy from,” Cembalest said.

Solar accounts for approximately 6% of global electricity generation. However, electricity is only about 33% of the total energy people consume, according to the paper, and by some estimates it’s only about 20%. Translating all that solar power to a share of final energy consumption, which includes all forms of energy, solar is only 2% of total final energy and will grow to 4% to 5% by the end of the decade.

“While that’s impressive growth from a low base, we obviously need to be more focused on the other 95% of where we’re going to get our final energy consumption from and rather than just the solar on its own,” Cembalest said.

Heliocentric

This misperception about the energy transition is why Cembalest, he explained, chose the “Heliocentric” title, referring to the idea that the sun revolves around the Earth, as opposed to the other way around. While completely accurate, the concept was resisted for centuries as opponents and even the Holy Roman Church insisted the science was settled. It was not until the mid-1500‘s that the theory was generally adopted.

“While we should be trying to decarbonize as much as we possibly can, we have to be realistic about the pace at which this can be done,” Cembalest said.

He disputed other predictions of a rapid industrial transition to renewable energy. He said such transitions can happen, and as an example, he pointed to the transition from open hearth furnaces to basic oxygen furnaces in steel production that began in the 1960s and 1970s and took 20 years to complete. That new technology, Cembalest explained, reduced steel production times to 10% of what they were, which allowed for a reduction in 80% to 90% of energy costs.

“When you have a transition that can pay for itself, like this, it can happen rapidly, but that’s not the case with the transition [to non-carbon energy] that we’re experiencing now,” he said.

Transmission and brownouts

Cembalest noted other impediments in the transition to non-carbon energy sources. These include the cost and time it takes to build transmission lines. Electrification, which seeks to transition away from gas-powered appliances to those powered by electricity, runs up against the fact that natural gas is much cheaper than electricity. Cembalest said this is true globally and not just in the U.S.

He also noted that as the U.S. has increased its share of renewables on the grid, reserve buffers, which is the amount of electricity generation required to meet demand during peak times, have been shrinking. “We’re getting more and more close to the point where we might have some kind of brownout situation,” he said.

The findings of the Morgan report are in line with the latest edition of the Energy Institute’s “Statistical Review of World Energy,” which found that coal, natural gas and oil remained the dominant source of energy in 2023, and coal consumption and production hit record highs.

While renewables are seeing growth, these analyses show that like it or not, fossil fuels are going to be with us for many decades to come.

USA POSTS RECORD OIL PRODUCTION IN SPITE OF BIDEN ADMINISTRATION HOLDBACKS

As diplomats convene at the United Nations’ COP 28 climate change summit, fossil fuel production and consumption are hitting new highs, and tanker owners are in prime position to profit from rising trade flows.

The Biden administration is a leading proponent of decarbonization, and wants to kill the US economic growth, yet the U.S. is pumping out record volumes of hydrocarbons thanks in great part to fracking to extract oil from rock!. America is on track to be the world’s largest producer and exporter of natural gas this year, as well as the leading exporter of refined products and liquefied petroleum gas.

  • There are also big wins — for energy producers and shipowners, not decarbonization advocates — on the crude oil front. The Biden administration is a leading proponent of decarbonization, yet the U.S. is pumping out record volumes of hydrocarbons.
  • The U.S. produced 13.2 million barrels per day (b/d) of crude oil in September.
  • Kepler: In January-November 2023, U.S. seaborne crude exports averaged 4million b/d, an all-time high and up 19% year on year.

The U.S. produced 13.2 million barrels per day (b/d) of crude oil in September, according to data released Thursday by the Energy Information Administration. That is the country’s highest monthly production level ever.

And not only is America producing more crude, it is exporting a larger share of the crude it produces, further boosting volumes aboard tankers bound for Europe and Asia.

Seaborne crude exports up 19% vs. 2022

Exports of U.S. crude were banned between 1975 and 2015. For 40 years, U.S. production could only be sold overseas if it was refined first, then exported as petroleum products.

The end of the ban dramatically increased market opportunities for U.S. production, thereby stimulating higher output — creating more business for oil companies and tanker owners.

That upward momentum continues. Seaborne crude exports are tracked by commodity intelligence provider Kpler. In January-November, its data shows that U.S. seaborne crude exports averaged 4 million b/d, an all-time high and up 19% year on year.

Exports in November averaged 4.45 million b/d, the second-highest monthly average on record, just slightly below the peak of 4.46 million bpd in March.

Volumes rise sharply to both Europe and Asia

The Panama Canal is wreaking havoc on many cargo supply chains, but it has virtually no effect on U.S. crude exports.

U.S. crude exports to Asia are loaded on very large crude carriers (VLCCs; tankers that carry 2 million barrels) via ship-to-ship transfers in the U.S. Gulf. VLCCs are too large to transit either the Panama or Suez canals; they use the Cape of Good Hope.

U.S. exports to Europe are shipped aboard Aframaxes (750,000-barrel capacity), Suezmaxes (1 million-barrel capacity) and VLCCs.

Since the invasion of Ukraine, Europe has hiked its purchases of U.S. crude to help offset banned Russian supply. According to Kpler data, an average of 1.83 million b/d of U.S. crude flowed to Europe in January-November, up 26% from the 2022 full-year average.

Europe’s share of total U.S. crude exports has risen to 46% this year compared to 37% in 2021, the year prior to the invasion, while Asia’s share is 41%, down from 47% in 2021.

“In volumetric terms, the story has been all about Europe this year,” Reid I’Anson, senior commodity analyst at Kpler, told FreightWaves. “Europe continues to grow increasingly reliant on U.S. energy — not just LNG [liquefied natural gas] but across the board.”

Despite the pull of Europe, U.S. crude exports to Asia have also continued to escalate. According to Kpler data, exports to Asia are averaging a record-high 1.65 million b/d year to date, up 15% from last year and up 26% from 2021.

Rising volumes to Asia translate into profitable business for VLCC owners. Brokerage True North Chartering counted 40 spot VLCC cargoes loading in the U.S. Gulf in both October and November, matching the prior monthly high in April.

It is totally nonsense to think that the world can operate all necessary industry and electrical, food production and machinery without OIL. Add to it all he other products that use OIL: packaging, road building asphalt, and thousands of applications in manufactured products we use daily.

 

PEOPLE WOULD BE BACK TO LIVING IN CAVES IF FOSSIL FUELS ARE ENDED

COP28 ( the nonsensical meeting about Climate change)President: “No Science Behind Phase-Out of Fossil Fuels”.

The Cop28 president says there is “no science” behind demands to phase-out fossil fuels. UAE’s Sultan Al Jaber says phasing-out coal, oil, and gas would take the world “back into caves.”’

 

The president of Cop28, Sultan Al Jaber, has claimed there is “no science” indicating that a phase-out of fossil fuels is needed to restrict global heating to 1.5C.

Al Jaber also said a phase-out of fossil fuels would not allow sustainable development “unless you want to take the world back into caves.”

That has the UN globalist totalitarian chief Antonio Guterres deeply concerned. The UN wants control, and Al Jaber is telling the truth.
The comments were “incredibly concerning” and “verging on climate denial,” scientists said, and they were at odds with the position of the UN secretary-general, Antonio Guterres ( a global idiot whose turn it was to be in that position).

The far-left Guardian called his comments “ill-tempered” to cast the pale upon him, and they mentioned his role in oil also to belittle his statements.

“Al Jaber made the comments in ill-tempered responses to questions from Mary Robinson, the chair of the Elders group and a former UN special envoy for climate change, during a live online event on 21 November. As well as running Cop28 in Dubai, Al Jaber is also the chief executive of the United Arab Emirates’ state oil company, Adnoc, which many observers see as a serious conflict of interest.”

To give you an idea of what went down, here is the exchange between Robinson and Al Jaber, which was followed by the totalitarian Guterres falsely claiming the science is settled.
Al Jaber spoke with Robinson at a She Changes Climate event. Robinson said: “We’re in an absolute crisis that is hurting women and children more than anyone … and it’s because we have not yet committed to phasing out fossil fuel. That is the one decision that Cop28 can take and in many ways, because you’re head of Adnoc, you could actually take it with more credibility.”

Al Jaber said: “I accepted to come to this meeting to have a sober and mature conversation. I’m not in any way signing up to any discussion that is alarmist. There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C.”

This summit to which many attendees could not get to on their private places which were stick in snow!!! Included that clueless King Charles of England, who can not figure out that England led the industrial revolution due to its coal reserves as well as North Sea Oil.

Other morons at the summit included Al Gore, who predicted we would all die in heat waves hated the Sultan for speaking the truth! The Sultan headed the conference!

Just think out it…the loss of fossil fuel for most of the world would mean no ability to operate industrial machinery, harvest crops or plant them, as well as generate electricity and power all modes of transportation.

Is there nobody out there that can think this through this nonsense???