Climate Spending

October 27, 2019

No business or industry could out-spend the Climatariat.

Unlike governments, academia and nonprofit organizations, businesses are legally bound to protect the fiduciary interests of their owners/shareholders. Spending large sums of shareholders’ money for purposes not directly related to increasing shareholder value is not consistent with this fiduciary responsibility. The purpose of a business is to generate a profitable return for its owners/shareholders.

Governments, academia and nonprofit organizations are free to spend every bit of their income on AGW propaganda. Furthermore, governments have the power to confiscate business earnings and spend it on AGW propaganda.

Brulle (2013) found that 91 climate change counter-movement (CCCM) organizations had a combined annual income of about $900 million/yr, with $64 million/yr coming from “foundation support” (AKA industries).

Climatic Change
February 2014, Volume 122, Issue 4, pp 681-694
Date: 21 Dec 2013

Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

Robert J. Brulle

This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.   LINK

The total average annual income of 91 “CCCM” organizations was ~$900 million from 2003-2010. An average of $64 million per year of that total came from philanthropic foundations. About 5% of the $64M/yr came from Koch affiliated foundations and about 1% came from the ExxonMobil Foundation.

The CCCM’s include the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Cato and just about every pro-business libertarian/conservative think tank in the US. While all of these organizations devote at least a fraction of their resources to protecting the US economy from Gorebots, greenhadists and enviromarxists, the only ones primarily focused on the AGW fraud are Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which receive a whopping 2-3% of ~$64 million per year from as many as 140 different foundations.

As of March 2017…

The Natural Resources Defense Council is totally dedicated to the imposition of Enviromarxism in the USA and religiously devoted to the AGW myth. Their annual income ($100 million) is more than the combined income of the American Enterprise Institute ($45 million), Cato Institute ($29 million), Heartland Institute ($5) and Competitive Enterprise Institute ($6 million).

The Columbia Earth Institute (run by Marxist economist Jeffrey Sachs) has an annual budget of ~$130 million…

In the 21st century, the preeminent need of our economy and society is to solve the problem of global sustainability…

[…]

The problem with the modern university is that it is organized around disciplinary fields, like biology and economics, or professional skills, such as engineering and law. While public policy schools have brought together many fields to attempt to solve policy problems, and business schools have done the same in attempting to train business leaders, both lack the grounding in sciences and engineering needed to address the issues of global sustainability. What is needed is a new form of academic organization that is university-wide, with the mission of institutionalizing interaction among all of these fields to address the problems of global sustainability.

The Earth Institute is precisely that: a new form of academic institution that integrates the knowledge base of the 21st century university to address the problems of global sustainability. Its mission is to develop programs of research, education, outreach and practical application of knowledge to address the critical issue of global sustainability.

[…]

The Institute is not a school, and does not grant degrees, but has partnered with schools to create and in many cases manage educational programs. These educational programs include non-degree programs of adult and executive education, but they also include the following degree programs:

  • Undergraduate major in Sustainable Development,
  • PhD in Sustainable Development,
  • MS in Sustainability Management,
  • MPA in Environmental Science and Policy,
  • MPA in Development Practice, and
  • MA in Climate and Society

LINK

$130 million per year to teach liberal arts majors to sound “sciencey” when spouting Enviromarxist psychobabble.

As of 2014, our Federal government was spending  least $12 billion (more like $21 billion) on the AGW myth.   Here’s the just “tip of the climateberg”…

Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009. As shown in figure 1, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reported federal climate change funding in three main categories since 1993:

technology to reduce emissions,
science to better understand climate change, and
international assistance for developing countries.

Figure 1: Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category, 1993-2014

http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary

While the billions spent by Enviromarxist terrorist groups (NRDC, WWF, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc.), academia and government pushing the AGW fraud are at least an order of magnitude larger than CCCM spending, the cost of mostly pointless regulations is at least 3 orders of magnitude (1,000 times) greater than CCCM spending.

Then there’s the matter of those escalating climate-premised EPA regulation costs that are killing businesses and jobs under cover of the Clean Air Act. These rampant overreaches are being justified by the agency’s Endangerment Finding proclaiming CO2 to be a pollutant. The finding ignored a contrary conclusion in EPA’s own “Internal Study on Climate” that: “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based upon a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.456 trillion Washington is currently spending. The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes the annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included. CEI further observes that those regulation costs exceed 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.436 trillion; tower over estimated individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87%; and reveal a federal government whose share of the entire economy reaches 35.5% when combined with federal 2010 spending outlays.  LINK

The Climatariat demonstrate even more mental deficiency when they babble on about ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers than they do when they babble about the 97% consensus supporting their 95% failed hypothesis.

Marcellus v Block Island

October 23, 2019

Marcellus 2Marcellus 1

https://s2.q4cdn.com/766046337/files/doc_financials/2018/q4/20181101-NFG-IR-Presentation-Q4-FY-18-FINAL.pdf

mmBtu Years Project Cost $/mmBtu
Block Island WF 30 MW 40% CF     3,412,000 20  $  290,000,000  $    84.99
Avg Marcellus Well 6 Bcf EUR     6,000,000 10  $       4,440,000  $       0.74

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/nfg

 

Subs at North Pole

October 18, 2019

The United States Navy.

The North Pole may not have been totally ice free in 1962, but there clearly was a lot of open water…

*USS SKATE (SSN 578), CDR Joseph L. Skoog (Dr. W.K. Lyon and Richard Boyle), and USS SEADRAGON (SSN 584), CDR Charles D. Summitt, (Walter Wittman) conducted the first rendezvous of 2 ships at the North Pole

*Dr. Waldo Lyon received President’s Distinguished Federal Civilian Service Award, presented by President John F. Kennedy

SSN 578 Skate

SSN 584 Seadragon in background…

This is what a submarine (SSN 638 Whale, 1969) looks like when it breaks through ice…

*USS WHALE (SSN 638), CDR William M. Wolff, operated in the Arctic Ocean and first SSN 637 Class submarine to surface at the North Pole, 60 years to the day after ADM Peary arrived there (Dr. W.K. Lyon and Richard Boyle)

SSN 578 Skate in 1959…

Caption: On 17 March 1959, the nuclear submarine Skate (SSN-578) surfaced through Arctic ice at the North Pole. She had visited the Pole the previous year, becoming the second ship to do so.

Clearly, in 1962, neither Skate nor Seadragon had to break through ice.

Direct Air Capture

October 9, 2019

Pulling carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air and using it to make synthetic fuel seems like the ultimate solution to climate change: Instead of adding ever more CO2 to the air from fossil fuels, we can simply recycle the same CO2 molecules over and over. But such technology is expensive—about $600 per ton of CO2, by one recent estimate. Now, in a new study, scientists say future chemical plants could drop that cost below $100 per ton—which could make synthetic fuels a reality in places such as California that incentivize low-carbon fuels.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/cost-plunges-capturing-carbon-dioxide-air

Chemical equation:

16[CO2] + 18[H2O] → 2[C8H18] + 25[O2]

It takes 8.89 kg of CO2 to make 1 gallon of octane.

The cost of extracting the CO2 from the air is currently about $600/ton.  This works out to $5.33/gal just to get the CO2.  $100/ton would bring this down to about $0.89/gal.

Carbon Engineering claims that the cost of generating the synthetic fuel  will be comparable to biodiesels once they have scaled up the process.

CE’s engineering work shows that AIR TO FUELS™ technology can produce fuels for less than $1.00 /L once scaled up, making them cost competitive with biodiesels. While currently more expensive than the production cost of fossil fuels, Low Carbon Fuel Standard regulations add to their competitive advantage, and allow market viability in leading jurisdictions today. The AIR TO FUELS™ process can deliver fuels that have an ultra-low life-cycle carbon intensity, or that are fully carbon neutral (depending on the energy source used to power the DAC component of the process).

About A2F

$1.00 /L = $3.79/gal, assuming USD.

$3.79 + $5.33 = $9.12/gal

That’s just the production cost.  It doesn’t include profits that would be required to repay the investors, who are probably expecting at least an 8% ROI…

CE’s investors now include: Bill Gates, Murray Edwards, BHP, Chevron Technology Ventures, Oxy Low Carbon Ventures, LLC, Bethel Lands Corporation Ltd, Carbon Order, First Round Capital, Lowercase Capital, Rusheen Capital Management, LLC, Starlight Ventures, Thomvest Asset Management (an affiliate of Peter J. Thomson), the Benjamin Family, the Hodgkinson Family, and the Hutchison Family. Additionally, all of CE’s Board, management and many of CE’s staff have personally invested into the company as part of this round.

Carbon Engineering concludes USD$68 million private investment round and proceeds with commercialization of carbon dioxide removal technology

This sort of thing only makes sense in a world in which crude oil is around $250/bbl or there is a $1,000/ton carbon tax.  CE’s investors are true believers that oil will either become very expensive in the near future or that our government will seek to destroy our economy in the near future… Or they are just hedging against such nightmares.

Sea Level Comment

October 9, 2019

To illustrate the irrelevance of sea level rise, I devised a little topographic exercise using NOAA tides & sea level trends and a USGS topographic map of the Jacksonville FL quadrangle.  There are two NOAA sea level stations in this quadrangle: Fernandina Beach and Mayport.  I chose Fernandina Beach because the record goes back to 1897, Mayport only goes back to 1930.

Here is the sea level trend and the height of a 10′ (3m) storm surge projected to 2140…

Here’s the same plot with the tidal range overlaid…

From: A geological perspective on sea level and storm surges.

Less than 1′ of sea level rise over the next 80 years requires very little in the way of preparation, unless your house is already flooding at high tide and there isn’t enough melt-able ice on Earth to support much more than 1′ of sea level rise over the next 80 years.

This sort of sea level rise…

Requires this sort of ice melt…

RCP8.5 doesn’t even deliver that much ice melt… And RCP8.5 is bad science fiction.

Whether measuring the temperature in the atmosphere…

Or at airports…

The worst case scenario is between RCP2.6 and RCP4.5…

 

Snappy Answers to Stupid Comments

October 3, 2019

Tainting Tainter

October 2, 2019

Anthropologist, Joeseph Tainter authored a 2012 book on the Deepwater Horizon (Macondo) disaster and its supposed relevance to EROEI.  His coauthor was Tadeusz Patzek, a professor of engineering. This is from Chapter 2, The Significance of Oil in the Gulf of Mexico, page 8…

Why would a company like BP build such a monument to technology and ingenuity as the Macondo well in the first place? Why was it necessary to drill for oil one mile beneath the surface of the Gulf of Mexico? Hubris among top management may have minimized the perception of risk, but well-informed employees throughout the organization understood the perils as well as the benefits of deep offshore operations. You may think that the need and motivation for these operations are obvious, but any rationale for drilling in these inhospitable environments must take into account the amount of oil (or energy in some form) that is needed to build and maintain an offshore drilling rig such as the Deepwater Horizon, extract the oil, and transport, store, and bring the precious liquid to market. In other words, large offshore platforms are built and operated using vast quantities of energy in order to find and recover even more. The cost is still higher when you consider the complex management and regulatory structures needed to complement the technology, however poorly you may feel that  the responsible people performed in the case of the Deepwater Horizon.

Let us begin with fundamentals. First we need to know how much recoverable oil is waiting for us down there, how this amount of oil measures up against demand and total oil use in the United States, and how big the energy profit is after so much energy is expended in exploration, drilling, recovery, refining, and transportation to your local gas station or power plant. In other words, do the benefits outweigh the risks, for whom, and for how long?

Joseph Tainter and Tadeusz Patzek , Drilling down: The gulf oil debacle and our energy dilemma. p8

Why would a company like BP build such a monument to technology and ingenuity as the Macondo well in the first place?

Because that’s where the oil was.

Why was it necessary to drill for oil one mile beneath the surface of the Gulf of Mexico?

Because that’s where the oil was.

Hubris among top management may have minimized the perception of risk, but well-informed employees throughout the organization understood the perils as well as the benefits of deep offshore operations.

Dudes!  Five companies bid against BP for an opportunity to drill “Macondo”…  BP’s high bid barely beat out smaller independent oil company LLOG Exploration…

  1. BP Exploration & Production Inc. $34,003,428.00
  2. LLOG Exploration Offshore, Inc. $33,625,000.00
  3. Noble Energy, Inc. $17,225,650.00
  4. Red Willow Offshore, LLC $14,075,000.00
  5. Eni Petroleum US LLC $4,577,115.00
  6. Anadarko E&P Company LP $2,145,950.00

Only one of BP’s competitors for the lease, Eni, was a major oil company. The rest were small, mid-sized and large independents.  Anadarko wound up partnering with BP on the Macondo well.   After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, LLOG Exploration was able to take the lease over and successfully drill the prospect.

LLOG Exploration renamed the prospect “Niedermeyer”… part of an Animal House theme.

Niedermeyer was a nice discovery.

  • Four wells on MC 208, 209, 252 and 253.  Feb. 2015 through July 2017.
  • 21.7 million barrels of oil (mmbo) and 57.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) of natural gas.
  • MC 252 SS-1 Well:  6.1 mmbo & 15.6 bcf.  Oct. 2015 through July 2017.  Avg. 9,600 barrels of oil per day (BOPD) and 24 million cubic feet of natural gas per day (mmcf/d).

The Niedermeyer, Marmalard and Son of Bluto 2 fields were completed as subsea tiebacks to LLOG’s “Delta House” floating production system (FPS) on MC 254.

Murphy Oil just bought this and other deepwater assets from LLOG for $1.4 billion. So, I think the industry has a much better grip on the “perils as well as the benefits of deep offshore operations” than an anthropology professor does.

You may think that the need and motivation for these operations are obvious, but any rationale for drilling in these inhospitable environments must take into account the amount of oil (or energy in some form) that is needed to build and maintain an offshore drilling rig such as the Deepwater Horizon, extract the oil, and transport, store, and bring the precious liquid to market.

The “need and motivation for these operations are obvious”… To make money.  No oil company or any other type of business would “take into account the amount of oil (or energy in some form) that is needed to build and maintain an offshore drilling rig such as the Deepwater Horizon, extract the oil, and transport, store, and bring the precious liquid to market,” and remain in business.

I can guarantee that we don’t factor the cost of building the drilling rigs that we contract to drill wells in the Gulf of Mexico. We factor in the cost to contract the rig and drill the well.

The most fracking hilarious thing from Tainter’s and Patzek’s book was this Gulf of Mexico production “forecast”…

I have no idea what “industry projection” they were referring to. Prior to Macondo deepwater production was forecast to increase sharply because a large number of deepwater discoveries, particularly ultra-deepwater Lower Tertiary discoveries were expected to come online. All of these projects were delayed by the Obama maladministration’s unlawful drilling moratorium and “permit-orium” in the aftermath of Macondo .

Here is a plot of actual Gulf of Mexico production overlaid on “Patzek’s Projection”…

Of course, that’s not how the oil industry would plot the production. This is how we would plot it:

Since I put those graphs together, Gulf of Mexico production has continued to increase, trailing only the Permian Basin (about 63% of Texas production is from the Permian Basin)…

EIA forecasts GOM production to average 1.9 million b/d in 2019, making this region the second-largest contributor to crude oil production growth from 2018 to 2019. The forecasted growth is driven by 14 new fields brought online in 2018 and 9 new fields expected to come online in 2019. These 23 fields collectively are expected to contribute more than 200,000 b/d of the total 1.9 million b/d of GOM production in 2019.

US EIA

Another 100,000 bbl/d and it’ll be 2 million barrels per day… And I think we’ll get there next year.

Shell starts production at Appomattox in the Gulf of Mexico

NEWS PROVIDED BY
Shell Offshore Inc.
23 May, 2019

First structure in Norphlet comes online ahead of schedule, below FID estimate


HOUSTON, May 23, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — Royal Dutch Shell plc, through its subsidiary Shell Offshore Inc (Shell) announces today that production has started at the Shell-operated Appomattox floating production system months ahead of schedule, opening a new frontier in the deep-water US Gulf of Mexico. Appomattox, which currently has an expected production of 175,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day (boe/d), is the first commercial discovery now brought into production in the deep-water Gulf of Mexico Norphlet formation.

[…]

PR Newswire

Appomattox is just the first deepwater Norphlet field to be brought on production… The Norphlet is one of the hottest plays in the Gulf… Hottest activity-wise. It’s actually quite cool geologically – That’s why it’s oil and not gas like the shallow water Norphlet in Mobile Bay. For a detailed discussion of the Norphlet, see “How Climate Change Buried a Desert 20,000 Feet Beneath the Gulf of Mexico Seafloor”.

Climate Science: “Survey Says”

September 23, 2019

97% of the “science” of AGW is rhetoric. Most climate-related scientists generally agree about the 3%.  I’m fairly certain that Pat Michaels, David Legates and Wille Soon would agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that, all other factors held equal, adding more of it to the atmosphere will raise the bulk temperature to some degree. Almost all of the “science” beyond that ranges from speculative to purely rhetorical.

Rhetoric…

BO_1

The scientific “consensus” according to:

Maibach, E., Perkins, D., Francis, Z., Myers, T., Englbom, A., et al. (2016). A 2016 National
Survey of American Meteorological Society Member Views on Climate Change: Initial Findings. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA: Center for Climate Change Communication.

“Climate change is real”

96% of “scientists” agree that climate change is real.

“Man-made”

67% of “scientists” characterized climate change as real and at least >51% man-made.

“And dangerous”

Only 38% of “scientists” characterized climate change as having been dangerous (primarily or exclusively harmful impacts) over the past 50 years.

Only 50% of “scientists” characterized climate change as being dangerous (primarily or exclusively harmful impacts) over the next 50 years.

“And today, there’s no greater threat to our planet than climate change.”

So climate change can no longer be denied – or ignored. The world is looking to the United States – to us – to lead. 

–Thankfully former President Barack Hussein Obama, April 18, 2015

Only 18% of “scientists” thought that there was any point in destroying our economy in order to prevent the weather from changing. Fully 41% of “scientists” indicated that climate change might as well be “ignored.”

Climate Change…

Additionally, Stenhouse et al., 2017 tells us that there is conflict within the American Meteorological Society on the subject of climate change.

This article analyzes open-ended survey responses to understand how members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) perceive conflict within the AMS over global warming. Of all survey respondents, 53% agreed that there was conflict within the AMS; of these individuals who perceived conflict, 62% saw it as having at least some productive aspects, and 53% saw at least some unproductive aspects. Among members who saw a productive side to the conflict, most agreed as to why it was productive: debate and diverse perspectives enhance science. However, among members who saw an unproductive side, there was considerable disagreement as to why. Members who are convinced of largely human-caused climate change expressed that debate over global warming sends an unclear message to the public. Conversely, members who are unconvinced of human-caused climate change often felt that their peers were closed-minded and suppressing unpopular views. These two groups converged, however, on one point: politics was seen as an overwhelmingly negative influence on the debate. This suggests that scientific organizations faced with similar conflict should understand that there may be a contradiction between legitimizing all members’ views and sending a clear message to the public about the weight of the evidence. The findings also reinforce the conclusion that attempts by scientific societies to directly address differences in political views may be met with strong resistance by many scientists.

“Of all survey respondents, 53% agreed that there was conflict within the AMS; of these individuals who perceived conflict, 62% saw it as having at least some productive aspects”… 

If it looks like a debate, walks like a debate and quacks like a debate, it might just be a debate.

September 22, 2019

Now that Marine Ice Cliff Instability has fallen flat on its face and given the total irrelevance of Meltwater Pulse 1a, there’s nothing short of an asteroid impact on the Antarctic Ice Sheet or massive volcanic eruption from below the ice sheet that could trigger this sort of sea level rise.

Besides, Jeffy… if the risks of catastrophic sea level rise were upon us, I seriously doubt that your favorite president would have bought a $15 million beachfront mansion.

Three Strikes

September 21, 2019

A large percentage of the public doesn’t know that global warming is happening now

Because you can’t actually see it on a thermometer.

that it’s caused by record levels of CO2 from fossil fuel burning,


that 99% of climate scientists agree on this and that the changes are effectively permanent.

David Romps…