Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

I’m aware. Specifically, what is the direct connection between any individual hurricane or wildfire and fossil fuels?  There is a direct connection between fossil fuel operations and seismic activity. 

Negged for the dumbness.

Dude.  You went to Lamar, didn't you?

(Edit: this news flash just in!  Smoking does not cause cancer.  How was this discovered?  Well, no one gets cancer after smoking a pack of cigarettes.  So, no direct connection).

Edited by Bullneck
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

Actually it wasn’t. Glad you recognize it but I feel like I’m speaking to a bunch of Gretas on this thread. 

 

Renewables are not a large scale answer for EROI reasons. In no way am I preventing change. I’m discussing reality. 

 

Reducing consumption will NEVER happen. It’s a pipe dream and is a waste of time to discuss. I don’t think you realize how much damage Trump is doing to oil prices. 

I think you know that I'm not a Greta. We've gone back and fourth and these issues many times. You've latched onto EROI for some reason, but it simply isn't the problem you think it is. EROI of solar in particular has been increasing with more efficient panels and manufacturing techniques. EROI of fossil fuels has been decreasing as the easy to get at sources are used up. Some older studies have very low EROI for solar and other renewables. But there are contradicting studies that not only have higher EROI for renewables, but EROI exceeding current fossil fuels. EROI also isn't a single number for a given energy source, but rather a movable target depending on a number of factors (including percentage of the grid). 

Reducing energy consumption has been happening on a per capita basis in developed countries for quite some time. This is largely due to increases in efficiency.  That's why US energy consumption has basically been flat for 30 years despite a substantial increase in population.  

Posted
3 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

Actually it wasn’t. Glad you recognize it but I feel like I’m speaking to a bunch of Gretas on this thread.

I didn't know what you meant by Greta. I'm a Greta, then. The below is true:

image.png.c25bd5940b09708ed50ed1e2b9836af5.png

She's worth a thousand of me and some high multiple of that of you. 

I suppose you dismiss her because she was just a girl when this started, and manly manful men don't want to have anyone think they could ever adopt the words of a female. Fuck you.

Fuck your EROI. Fuck your devotion to obtuseness. Fuck your part in dragging down the republic. Fuck your face, fuckwad.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

I didn't know what you meant by Greta. I'm a Greta, then. The below is true:

image.png.c25bd5940b09708ed50ed1e2b9836af5.png

She's worth a thousand of me and some high multiple of that of you. 

I suppose you dismiss her because she was just a girl when this started, and manly manful men don't want to have anyone think they could ever adopt the words of a female. Fuck you.

Fuck your EROI. Fuck your devotion to obtuseness. Fuck your part in dragging down the republic. Fuck your face, fuckwad.

Please don't start with this. Y'all get a room.

Posted (edited)

From what I've learned being in the business and in grad school, EROI (or EROEI), SOME renewables are very close to MODERN day O&G extraction. I say modern day O&G (horizontal drilling, ultra deep water, etc.) because Spindletop and Thunderhorse ain't walking back in the door. A few graphics:

AD_4nXfXN80fJqR2TQNUk2X27gM-cKW11U0M8fTHNfMGpg9SikTrWfnWBxz5BBZYEx91Qu5_z9NmeWbBkApsMUj8iHI8MalUCXCgaGDHlkyXmS6kYVbvbZAdipftT72ZJBC-Y7KzeTc_?key=hGn9hIUB99VATOYKFsVsMINI

 

image.png.22ceeda74c772da5305df8254e6a3134.png

Edited by Vegas64
Posted
14 hours ago, PTINS said:

Human nature being what it is, putting free money, venture capitalists, "scientists" with an agenda, and politicians in the same room, is never a good idea.

Interesting how you put "scientists" in quotation marks as if broadly scientists are suspect and untrustworthy, and then explain that they have an agenda. Maybe we should try that with everyone else as well:

"Free money" with an agenda

"Venture capitalists" with an agenda

"Politicians" with an agenda

"Midstream commercial developers" with an agenda

"Oil and gas executives" with an agenda

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, RomaVicta said:

Start what? It's the climate thread. I don't engage in pointless argument. Maybe mind your own business or try to know what you're talking about.

Please try to contain yourself.

Posted
Just now, wild_turkey said:

Interesting how you put "scientists" in quotation marks as if broadly scientists are suspect and untrustworthy, and then explain that they have an agenda. Maybe we should try that with everyone else as well:

"Free money" with an agenda

"Venture capitalists" with an agenda

"Politicians" with an agenda

"Midstream commercial developers" with an agenda

"Oil and gas executives" with an agenda

Not to speak for him but I think him putting the scientists in scare quotes there is to make the distinction from scientists (real, authentic, as we use the term) and the psuedo-scientists or those who purport to be serious academics/scientists but are disingenious. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Vegas64 said:

Please try to contain yourself.

Please demonstrate wit or the ability to come up with something fresh.

You likely don't grasp the irony of you writing the above after you dully said that what I was doing with Rex. Nice graphics, though.

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Please demonstrate wit or the ability to come up with something fresh.

You likely don't grasp the irony of you writing the above after you dully said that what I was doing with Rex. Nice graphics, though.

The hackneyed attempts at trying to demonstrate wit or contorting yourself to try and say something fresh (or in your case, being extremely emotional and not matching the speed and tone of the thread and conversation) is the problem when trying to discuss.

I suspect Rex is most likely an O&G bigot in the sense he has a hard-wired bias that's hard to be objective or decouple his lived experiences and/or politics with the industry and macroeconomics (and intersectionality of "Climate"), but you being hysterical isn't a productive use of any one's time in this thread.

I hope this is the last I will have to address this behavior with you. /s (attempt at some wit to placate you).

Edited by Vegas64
Posted

The fact that all of these ROI discussions purposefully exclude externalities is the fucking problem.

Imagine energy source A -- can power 10,000 homes for a year for $10 million.

Energy source B -- can power 10,000 homes for a year for $7.5 million.

No brainer, right?  But.....energy source B, to operate at that level of performance, will pollute the primary water source for the area.  And, it will emit toxic emissions that will cause an additional 100 fatal cancer cases a year.

 

The relevant question is not the relative EROI of A and B.  The relevant question is the external costs of obtaining the $2.5 million a year in savings by choosing source B.  The cost of saving $2.5 million is an unusable water source and 100 extra deaths per year.  Are THOSE costs worth the money?

Of course, we all know the answer.  The savings could be a dollar, and the cost 1,000 additional deaths, and the obvious choice would be "save a buck, because shareholder value and we've convinced consumers that saving an extra few cents is worth making things a hellscape."

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The fact that all of these ROI discussions purposefully exclude externalities is the fucking problem.

Imagine energy source A -- can power 10,000 homes for a year for $10 million.

Energy source B -- can power 10,000 homes for a year for $7.5 million.

No brainer, right?  But.....energy source B, to operate at that level of performance, will pollute the primary water source for the area.  And, it will emit toxic emissions that will cause an additional 100 fatal cancer cases a year.

 

The relevant question is not the relative EROI of A and B.  The relevant question is the external costs of obtaining the $2.5 million a year in savings by choosing source B.  The cost of saving $2.5 million is an unusable water source and 100 extra deaths per year.  Are THOSE costs worth the money?

Of course, we all know the answer.  The savings could be a dollar, and the cost 1,000 additional deaths, and the obvious choice would be "save a buck, because shareholder value and we've convinced consumers that saving an extra few cents is worth making things a hellscape."

I don't think that is EXACTLY accurate in that most EROEI models I've seen in modern times from sustainability consultancies (the big "McKinsey of ESGs" that all the big O&G use) account for the externalities as inputs/outputs in EROI calcs. LCA is a huge compononet when financial and physical modeling of new energy projects are being evaluated-- and these life cycle assessments (LCA's) aboslutely evaluate the environmental impacts of whatever you are trying to do (A or B in your analogy) throughout the entire life cycle, from soup to nuts. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
31 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The fact that all of these ROI discussions purposefully exclude externalities is the fucking problem.

Imagine energy source A -- can power 10,000 homes for a year for $10 million.

Energy source B -- can power 10,000 homes for a year for $7.5 million.

No brainer, right?  But.....energy source B, to operate at that level of performance, will pollute the primary water source for the area.  And, it will emit toxic emissions that will cause an additional 100 fatal cancer cases a year.

 

The relevant question is not the relative EROI of A and B.  The relevant question is the external costs of obtaining the $2.5 million a year in savings by choosing source B.  The cost of saving $2.5 million is an unusable water source and 100 extra deaths per year.  Are THOSE costs worth the money?

Of course, we all know the answer.  The savings could be a dollar, and the cost 1,000 additional deaths, and the obvious choice would be "save a buck, because shareholder value and we've convinced consumers that saving an extra few cents is worth making things a hellscape."

tumblr_psldqiLmPN1sx88n2o8_540.gifv

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

That's going to vary by regions and market. I'm not aware of specific laws capping prices by generation type (although I'm sure some are coming or have passed recently). Usually, price is just what the market will bear. Non-dispatchable generation will often have lower priced contracts, but not always. And at least some portion of generation just sells on the real time market as opposed to longer term contracts. National wholesale average is between 3 and 4 cents over the last couple of years. Covid also distorted prices for quite some time by lowering demand. 

So, whether I have nuke plant, coal plant, or wind turbine I am still selling it all for 2 cents per kWh right?   

Posted
8 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

I don't think that is EXACTLY accurate in that most EROEI models I've seen in modern times from sustainability consultancies (the big "McKinsey of ESGs" that all the big O&G use) account for the externalities as inputs/outputs in EROI calcs. LCA is a huge compononet when financial and physical modeling of new energy projects are being evaluated-- and these life cycle assessments (LCA's) aboslutely evaluate the environmental impacts of whatever you are trying to do (A or B in your analogy) throughout the entire life cycle, from soup to nuts. 

No. EROEI does not attempt to account for externalities like climate change. It isn't part of the formula at all. Energy in, Energy out. That's what matters to it. 

Lifecycle costs analysis may or may not include costs from climate change in the model depending upon who is doing the analysis. Some analysis is done to model the economic viability of a particular project, so it only cares about those costs that may actually impact the project (i.e., captured costs). That sort of analysis will by design not account for externalities because, by definition, those will not impact the project.  

32 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

The hackneyed attempts at trying to demonstrate wit or contorting yourself to try and say something fresh (or in your case, being extremely emotional and not matching the speed and tone of the thread and conversation) is the problem when trying to discuss.

I suspect Rex is most likely an O&G bigot in the sense he has a hard-wired bias that's hard to be objective or decouple his lived experiences and/or politics with the industry and macroeconomics (and intersectionality of "Climate"), but you being hysterical isn't a productive use of any one's time in this thread.

I hope this is the last I will have to address this behavior with you. /s (attempt at some wit to placate you).

What the fuck are you talking about? He responded to a very specific insult ("Gretas") with a very specific answer that was totally appropriate in a fucking thread titled "Climate Change" not "Rex ignores basic science and how it impacts everyone." 

41 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

Not to speak for him but I think him putting the scientists in scare quotes there is to make the distinction from scientists (real, authentic, as we use the term) and the psuedo-scientists or those who purport to be serious academics/scientists but are disingenious. 

Who do you think he was implying are the psuedo-scientists here? Because I can promise you Rex wasn't intending to dismiss the few phony scientists that dismiss human driven climate change. The vast majority of climate scientists understand how releasing carbon into the atmosphere changes the planet's climate. 

44 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

From what I've learned being in the business and in grad school, EROI (or EROEI), SOME renewables are very close to MODERN day O&G extraction. I say modern day O&G (horizontal drilling, ultra deep water, etc.) because Spindletop and Thunderhorse ain't walking back in the door. A few graphics:

AD_4nXfXN80fJqR2TQNUk2X27gM-cKW11U0M8fTHNfMGpg9SikTrWfnWBxz5BBZYEx91Qu5_z9NmeWbBkApsMUj8iHI8MalUCXCgaGDHlkyXmS6kYVbvbZAdipftT72ZJBC-Y7KzeTc_?key=hGn9hIUB99VATOYKFsVsMINI

 

image.png.22ceeda74c772da5305df8254e6a3134.png

EROI is a moving target. EROI of solar is higher as non-dispatchable renewables become a larger percentage of the grid due to the need for additional storage. But, up to 50% or so renewable, modern utility solar would have an EROI competitive with natural gas. There are a lot of different calculations out there for EROI with a lot of different assumptions. 

Posted
24 minutes ago, Nivek said:

So, whether I have nuke plant, coal plant, or wind turbine I am still selling it all for 2 cents per kWh right?   

It is more complicated than that, but they could all be the same. For instance, any generator is free to sell on the ERCOT real time market. If they do so, they get whatever price is posted by ERCOT. If my solar panels at home generate power to the grid in the middle of August when prices are $.50 per kwh, I'd get the same $.50 per kwh as a 500MW combined cycle turbine power plant.  But most power plants sell some or almost all of their generation based upon longer term contracts with averaged pricing. A combined cycle powerplant usually is going to get a better long term contract price because its energy is dispatchable and can fill needs at anytime. Dispatchable powerplants may get lower longer term contract prices if they primarily generate electricity when real time prices are lower. 

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

EROI is a moving target. EROI of solar is higher  lower as non-dispatchable renewables become a larger percentage of the grid due to the need for additional storage. But, up to 50% or so renewable, modern utility solar would have an EROI competitive with natural gas. There are a lot of different calculations out there for EROI with a lot of different assumptions. 

typo that I didn't catch in time. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It is more complicated than that, but they could all be the same. For instance, any generator is free to sell on the ERCOT real time market. If they do so, they get whatever price is posted by ERCOT. If my solar panels at home generate power to the grid in the middle of August when prices are $.50 per kwh, I'd get the same $.50 per kwh as a 500MW combined cycle turbine power plant.  But most power plants sell some or almost all of their generation based upon longer term contracts with averaged pricing. A combined cycle powerplant usually is going to get a better long term contract price because its energy is dispatchable and can fill needs at anytime. Dispatchable powerplants may get lower longer term contract prices if they primarily generate electricity when real time prices are lower. 

 

Thank you, so now what we really need is just the price per installation and the kWh ratings, and the % capacity which should include maintenance, so we can have a real comparison.

Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

The fact that all of these ROI discussions purposefully exclude externalities is the fucking problem.

Imagine energy source A -- can power 10,000 homes for a year for $10 million.

Energy source B -- can power 10,000 homes for a year for $7.5 million.

No brainer, right?  But.....energy source B, to operate at that level of performance, will pollute the primary water source for the area.  And, it will emit toxic emissions that will cause an additional 100 fatal cancer cases a year.

 

The relevant question is not the relative EROI of A and B.  The relevant question is the external costs of obtaining the $2.5 million a year in savings by choosing source B.  The cost of saving $2.5 million is an unusable water source and 100 extra deaths per year.  Are THOSE costs worth the money?

Of course, we all know the answer.  The savings could be a dollar, and the cost 1,000 additional deaths, and the obvious choice would be "save a buck, because shareholder value and we've convinced consumers that saving an extra few cents is worth making things a hellscape."

The problem is also mixing up energy return on investment for monetary return on investment. These aren't the same thing. Energy return on investment just tells me how much energy out I get for a given amount of energy in. Whether it costs more or less to get than energy or whether that energy causes downstream economic costs are all irrelevant to that metric. 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

I didn't know what you meant by Greta. I'm a Greta, then. The below is true:

image.png.c25bd5940b09708ed50ed1e2b9836af5.png

She's worth a thousand of me and some high multiple of that of you. 

I suppose you dismiss her because she was just a girl when this started, and manly manful men don't want to have anyone think they could ever adopt the words of a female. Fuck you.

Fuck your EROI. Fuck your devotion to obtuseness. Fuck your part in dragging down the republic. Fuck your face, fuckwad.

I’m going to attempt to stop this right now: I’m sorry. This isn’t the thread for discussing economics and proper investment and I lost that. My “Gretas” comment was directed at those that would dispense with our entire energy feedstock complex to benefit the environment. I strongly feel that is not realistic for any nation, and made comments to that effect. I understand that there are quite a few in a Climate thread that will feel differently and this isn’t the place to argue about it. 

I agree with you on a lot, and we can argue about this elsewhere if you choose. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Reducing energy consumption has been happening on a per capita basis in developed countries for quite some time. This is largely due to increases in efficiency.  That's why US energy consumption has basically been flat for 30 years despite a substantial increase in population.  

Electricity is still increasing, but oil has been flat (thank god because we don’t have enough oil), yet your point remains. US consumption doesn’t matter though. Most of the world population are in developing nations with skyrocketing energy needs. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I’m going to attempt to stop this right now: I’m sorry. This isn’t the thread for discussing economics and proper investment and I lost that. My “Gretas” comment was directed at those that would dispense with our entire energy feedstock complex to benefit the environment. I strongly feel that is not realistic for any nation, and made comments to that effect. I understand that there are quite a few in a Climate thread that will feel differently and this isn’t the place to argue about it. 

I agree with you on a lot, and we can argue about this elsewhere if you choose. 

I don't think you were necessarily in the wrong thread. That balance is an important topic in a thread concerned about the climate. But I do think it can become difficult to manage when both sides (truly in this case) get defensive about certain slights. I apologize for my post upthread where you got caught in the cross-fire with another poster than I felt was being dismissing/obtuse. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think you were necessarily in the wrong thread. That balance is an important topic in a thread concerned about the climate. But I do think it can become difficult to manage when both sides (truly in this case) get defensive about certain slights. I apologize for my post upthread where you got caught in the cross-fire with another poster than I felt was being dismissing/obtuse. 

I don’t think I was wrong either. People see me as their punching bag and I picked the absolute wrong thread to argue my case. Carry on. 

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Electricity is still increasing, but oil has been flat (thank god because we don’t have enough oil), yet your point remains. US consumption doesn’t matter though. Most of the world population are in developing nations with skyrocketing energy needs. 

And that is a fair point. I think the fair way to say it is that primary energy consumption has been flat since 1995. Electric generation was flat from 2006 until recently, but the rise of crypto-currency and AI is changing that over the last couple of years. Worldwide trends are bit more difficult to deal with because you have decreases or flattening in the countries with the highest share of energy consumption and increases in countries with historically lower shares of energy consumption (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita). If the US population had been flat or decreasing like other Western and developed nations, our total energy usage would have decreased significantly. 

 

image.png.1a3e6d02d8abd99213cba440e4c3de4d.png

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php

Edited by Dahobbs
Posted
6 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

The hackneyed attempts at trying to demonstrate wit or contorting yourself to try and say something fresh (or in your case, being extremely emotional and not matching the speed and tone of the thread and conversation) is the problem when trying to discuss.

I suspect Rex is most likely an O&G bigot in the sense he has a hard-wired bias that's hard to be objective or decouple his lived experiences and/or politics with the industry and macroeconomics (and intersectionality of "Climate"), but you being hysterical isn't a productive use of any one's time in this thread.

I hope this is the last I will have to address this behavior with you. /s (attempt at some wit to placate you).

spacer.png

Posted
4 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

I’m going to attempt to stop this right now: I’m sorry. This isn’t the thread for discussing economics and proper investment and I lost that. My “Gretas” comment was directed at those that would dispense with our entire energy feedstock complex to benefit the environment. I strongly feel that is not realistic for any nation, and made comments to that effect. I understand that there are quite a few in a Climate thread that will feel differently and this isn’t the place to argue about it. 

I agree with you on a lot, and we can argue about this elsewhere if you choose. 

Thanks, I'm now embarrassed about my post. Compliments on your civility here. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
People see me as their punching bag and I picked the absolute wrong thread to argue my case. Carry on. 


In fairness to you, fossils fuels are very necessary for you to be able to dip on an airplane in 2025.

Some of us are just hoping for a future in which people don’t dip on airplanes and fossils fuels comprise a much smaller percentage of global energy consumption.
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

 


In fairness to you, fossils fuels are very necessary for you to be able to dip on an airplane in 2025.

Some of us are just hoping for a future in which people don’t dip on airplanes and fossils fuels comprise a much smaller percentage of global energy consumption.

 

Harsh. But fair. 

Posted
On 2/18/2025 at 8:15 AM, wild_turkey said:

How will we ever find out if the O&G industry makes every effort to prevent change? People would rather bury their heads in the sand and condemn future generations if it means their current income and retirement plans are protected.

The world today would not function without fossil fuels, but no one is suggesting we immediately stop using them overnight. That’s a ridiculous strawman argument and you know it.

Every work colleague that anybody in my family ever met was praised and respected by my family. Two weeks out of college, and everybody blamed me for oil and gas prices quadrupling after Three Mile Island and the Iranian Revolution. Together, as the O&G industry, we were the scum of the earth.  

One thing we were guilty of was efficiently and safely supplying what was demanded, 24/7/365.

Hired into a Management Development Program, with a specific goal of identifying individuals who could run the company, I knew I worked with some of the best and the brightest in a company that emphasized safety and innovation, that pioneered change, and rewarded judgement and decision making.

I also realized 90+% of the population would disagree with whatever I said or did, and it was a waste of time to try to help them understand. That would be one of the reasons I never posted in this thread til last week.

We were not Academia, bathed in theory and righteousness.  Our stuff had to work. We were a for-profit, publicly traded, oil & gas company. One that was the focal point of everything that was wrong in the world, tangled in a web of hostility, layers and layers of laws, regulations and guidelines, and ignorance, both inside and outside the industry. 

Makes every effort to prevent change? Other than efforts to enhance and improve safety, I cannot remember a single instance where that was ever the case.

On 2/18/2025 at 9:27 AM, Nivek said:

So where are you getting this figure from that they are charging a fixed rate of 2 cents per kWh?    How does this compare to an equivalent output for various other types of energy generation methods?   What are their payback rates?  What are the laws governing the rates being charged on a generation type (wind, nuke, coal, etc.)?   

I simply provided a generic analysis done by others, showing an economic payout that I would decline to approve or fund.

I take no pride of authorship in what was offered.

My economic models have 50-60 variables, with supply and price being the most important, and the hardest to forecast. Both were dictated by the free market, which has little in common with the economics of renewables.  

On 2/18/2025 at 9:34 AM, Dahobbs said:

I'm aware of your general background. The fact that some projects had shorter payout estimates doesn't mean that other projects with longer time tables don't exist. Capital intensive projects with multidecade life spans often have break even points of 10 years or even more. The cost per installed MW you provided for wind turbines aren't that far out of line with the  cost for a combined cycle power plant (i.e., 1,000,000 per MW). Your own estimates would have that same combined cycle plant paying off in the 8-10 year range, and that is completely ignoring operating and fueling costs. 

Just going to the general point of a 10-year+ breakeven point not being a strange concept for private industry, a 30-year mortgage at 5.5% doesn't break even until year ~14.  You'd need an interest rate north of 9% to get to a 10-year breakeven point or better. 

I agree that economic criteria are different for many reasons.

Perhaps the favorable investment opportunities in O&G invites the notion that O&G companies are against change. They aren't necessarily against it, they just choose to deploy their limited capital elsewhere. 

The supply side of gas, the gathering and processing, has a very short cycle, and constant business, with most wells declining in volume 50% the first year. If you don't do something, you will die at 15-20% per year.  Our base case threshold was a 20% IRR, or it probably didn't get funded.  The only growth projects approved with lower rates had synergies with other affiliated assets. Safety & environmental projects were non-discretionary and always funded. Chemical Plants and Refineries are the other end of the spectrum, with 50 year economic models.

My involvement in the mega projects was usually but a small piece. When I quietly questioned a long term price forecast, I was told, wink! wink!, that was what was needed to justify the project. I have always viewed longer term projects based on speculative economics as suspect.  That doesn't make them bad projects.

I made board presentations on larger projects.  I offered facts, my opinions on those facts, showed them the potential money, and influenced others to make the hard decisions. True to form, they always heard the part they wanted to hear. 

23 hours ago, wild_turkey said:

Interesting how you put "scientists" in quotation marks as if broadly scientists are suspect and untrustworthy, and then explain that they have an agenda. Maybe we should try that with everyone else as well:

"Free money" with an agenda

"Venture capitalists" with an agenda

"Politicians" with an agenda

"Midstream commercial developers" with an agenda

"Oil and gas executives" with an agenda

23 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

Not to speak for him but I think him putting the scientists in scare quotes there is to make the distinction from scientists (real, authentic, as we use the term) and the psuedo-scientists or those who purport to be serious academics/scientists but are disingenious. 

Thank you Vegas64.

I take it as a given the non-scientists have an agenda. That is expected.

Science is based on undeniable facts. Scientists know better than anyone where the facts end and speculation and opinion begins. A true scientist would make that distinction.  In my lingo, the "scientists" weave facts with opinions and make representations that are more opinions and less factual.

image.png.b3d63a5d148a53d22b539b4376d2ea12.png

The report "supporting" the decision to put the King's X on LNG is another example. It should have just said "We just don't want it."

I was in the forecasting business. I relied on factual information, where available, and always said in the absence of facts, I'll make some up. I had to make assumptions, "... the trend is your friend." My analysis was based on the best information available, factual or otherwise. 

21 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

The vast majority of climate scientists understand how releasing carbon into the atmosphere changes the planet's climate. 

If we didn't release carbon into the atmosphere, everything would die.

There should be a balance between the hydrocarbons (oil & gas) and carbohydrates (potatoes) that are consumed for fuel and converted into carbon dioxide needs to be balanced with the consumption of CO2 that plants convert to oxygen.  You cannot have one without the other.

We should plant more plants.

Posted
21 minutes ago, PTINS said:

Every work colleague that anybody in my family ever met was praised and respected by my family. Two weeks out of college, and everybody blamed me for oil and gas prices quadrupling after Three Mile Island and the Iranian Revolution. Together, as the O&G industry, we were the scum of the earth.  

One thing we were guilty of was efficiently and safely supplying what was demanded, 24/7/365.

Hired into a Management Development Program, with a specific goal of identifying individuals who could run the company, I knew I worked with some of the best and the brightest in a company that emphasized safety and innovation, that pioneered change, and rewarded judgement and decision making.

I also realized 90+% of the population would disagree with whatever I said or did, and it was a waste of time to try to help them understand. That would be one of the reasons I never posted in this thread til last week.

We were not Academia, bathed in theory and righteousness.  Our stuff had to work. We were a for-profit, publicly traded, oil & gas company. One that was the focal point of everything that was wrong in the world, tangled in a web of hostility, layers and layers of laws, regulations and guidelines, and ignorance, both inside and outside the industry. 

This is the climate thread but your post reads more like an explanation or a justification of your career in O&G, like maybe you are speaking to an O&G interest group or your family or a therapist, trying to explain your history. I'm not trying to be a dick. The world's understanding of these things was a lot different for most of your career, but we have learned a lot since then. There's a lot of shit we still do today that future generations may not look upon favorably. That's great that your family respected you and your colleagues; I just don't see what those past feelings have to do with climate change today and our path forward. 

28 minutes ago, PTINS said:

Makes every effort to prevent change? Other than efforts to enhance and improve safety, I cannot remember a single instance where that was ever the case.

I never suggested that you, PTINS, personally stood in the way of progress to fight climate change. What I'm saying is that the O&G industry as a whole spends millions of dollars on lobbyists to prevent change. That seems pretty indisputable but someone please correct me if that is somehow inaccurate.

44 minutes ago, PTINS said:

There should be a balance between the hydrocarbons (oil & gas) and carbohydrates (potatoes) that are consumed for fuel and converted into carbon dioxide needs to be balanced with the consumption of CO2 that plants convert to oxygen.  You cannot have one without the other.

We should plant more plants.

We should plant more trees, but please tell me you don't seriously think that is the solution. Nothing to do with shifting away from fossil fuels, but simply plant more trees to restore the balance?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, PTINS said:

If we didn't release carbon into the atmosphere, everything would die.

There should be a balance between the hydrocarbons (oil & gas) and carbohydrates (potatoes) that are consumed for fuel and converted into carbon dioxide needs to be balanced with the consumption of CO2 that plants convert to oxygen.  You cannot have one without the other.

We should plant more plants.

The rest of your post is good and I agree with it generally. This part I think deserves a separate response and represents a misunderstanding of the earth's carbon cycle. 

1). Carbon and CO2 is needed for life. That is correct. But...

2). The additional releases from carbon stored in hydrocarbons are not necessary to sustain existing life. 

The carbon in current plants (and potatoes) re-enters the environment as part of the lifecycle of the plants. There is no need for additional extraneous carbon for the carbon cycle to continue. 

The second part above is about releases of carbon from when the Earth's climate was warmer hundreds of millions of years ago. That carbon was essentially removed from the planetary carbon cycle and not only isn't required to sustain our current ecosystem, but is in fact detrimental to it, especially when released over a geologically short time span without giving the ecosystem time to to reach a new equilibrium.  

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

The GOP pledged to plant a trillion trees to combat climate change. There's currently about 3 trillion trees on earth. Where the fuck are they going to find the space to plant an additional trillion? It's not a serious solution, it's just a side show that they never plan on following through on, much like Hyperloop and the 1994 GOP health plan.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, elfenix said:

The GOP pledged to plant a trillion trees to combat climate change. There's currently about 3 trillion trees on earth. Where the fuck are they going to find the space to plant an additional trillion? It's not a serious solution, it's just a side show that they never plan on following through on, much like Hyperloop and the 1994 GOP health plan.

Also, very very small trees 

IMG_4199.gif

Edited by NAVY
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, elfenix said:

The GOP pledged to plant a trillion trees to combat climate change. There's currently about 3 trillion trees on earth. Where the fuck are they going to find the space to plant an additional trillion? It's not a serious solution, it's just a side show that they never plan on following through on, much like Hyperloop and the 1994 GOP health plan.

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-new-trees-would-we-need-offset-our-carbon-emissions

Posted
1 hour ago, elfenix said:

The GOP pledged to plant a trillion trees to combat climate change. There's currently about 3 trillion trees on earth. Where the fuck are they going to find the space to plant an additional trillion? It's not a serious solution, it's just a side show that they never plan on following through on, much like Hyperloop and the 1994 GOP health plan.

Hey I am just delighted they have a plan to counter this crisis, even if it is an unfeasible one. Plant away I say! Cover Oklahoma in a thick forest inside which OU will be lost forever.

  • Haha 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

The rest of your post is good and I agree with it generally. This part I think deserves a separate response and represents a misunderstanding of the earth's carbon cycle. 

1). Carbon and CO2 is needed for life. That is correct. But...

2). The additional releases from carbon stored in hydrocarbons are not necessary to sustain existing life. 

The carbon in current plants (and potatoes) re-enters the environment as part of the lifecycle of the plants. There is no need for additional extraneous carbon for the carbon cycle to continue. 

The second part above is about releases of carbon from when the Earth's climate was warmer hundreds of millions of years ago. That carbon was essentially removed from the planetary carbon cycle and not only isn't required to sustain our current ecosystem, but is in fact detrimental to it, especially when released over a geologically short time span without giving the ecosystem time to to reach a new equilibrium.  

This. I don’t understand why people don’t get this very simple explanation. Yes, the climate was different back then. And it would absolutely wreck our current ecosystem and existence if we were to suddenly, or over a few hundred years (the same thing in geologic terms), switch back to that level of CO2. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This. I don’t understand why people don’t get this very simple explanation. Yes, the climate was different back then. And it would absolutely wreck our current ecosystem and existence if we were to suddenly, or over a few hundred years (the same thing in geologic terms), switch back to that level of CO2. 

This.  That said....a combined approach of 1) reducing carbon emissions as much as possible, 2) preserving as much existing forest with large trees as possible, and 3) plant as much forest as possible - seriously, it's a planet-saving project, "expensive" should not be an obstacle.

We won't do any of that.  Because that's woke commie bullshit, anything that isn't just massive profit-taking and creating "shareholder value" is evil work of satan.

Posted

I have a plan for carbon capture. We should convert as much carbon as possible to plastic, and then shred all that plastic into little tiny pieces and spread it evenly all over the globe. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, elfenix said:

The GOP pledged to plant a trillion trees to combat climate change. There's currently about 3 trillion trees on earth. Where the fuck are they going to find the space to plant an additional trillion? It's not a serious solution, it's just a side show that they never plan on following through on, much like Hyperloop and the 1994 GOP health plan.

Well, we got these islands of trash rising in our major oceans and waterways. We start taking wildflower seeds and maybe some saplings for the bigger islands and say these trees are fruit bearing …I know who wants to eat trash fruit, but if we  add fertilizers and pesticides, these trees could get bigger and bear even more fruit…

Edited by Mdhorn
  • Like 1
Posted
On 2/18/2025 at 1:38 PM, Vegas64 said:

Not to speak for him but I think him putting the scientists in scare quotes there is to make the distinction from scientists (real, authentic, as we use the term) and the psuedo-scientists or those who purport to be serious academics/scientists but are disingenious. 

Like the ones on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry like S. Fred Singer (who I’m happy to learn passed away 5 years ago), Alex Epstein, Judith Curry et al. who deny the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming? I didn’t get the impression that he meant it that way. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Let's all take a moment to congratulate King Trump for vanquishing our foes... our foes being Hawaiian songbirds.

 Despite the funds already having been allocated, and the mosquitoes prepared for release, the funding freeze has halted the release of male mosquitoes that produce sterile offspring.

Within the year, the final wild akikiki will perish. Those in captivity are doing poorly and will not be able to be released, as they will succumb to Avian Malaria. Goodbye, akikiki.

Akeke'e number around 600 individuals and are declining at a rate of 21%/year. Goodbye, akeke'e.

Maui parrotbill has dropped over 50% in the last decade to about 150 individuals. Goodbye, Maui parrotbill.

Puaiohi numbers around 500 species and is threatened more by invasive species. Good luck keeping those in check without federal funding. Goodbye, Puaiohi.

Akiapola'au numbers around 1000, and is susceptible to mosquito-borne disease and invasive wildlife. Goodbye, akiapola'au.

King Trump making extinction great again!

1200 (24).jpeg

1200 (25).jpeg

1200 (26).jpeg

1200 (27).jpeg

1200 (28).jpeg

  • Rage+1 3
Posted
23 hours ago, wild_turkey said:

This is the climate thread but your post reads more like an explanation or a justification of your career in O&G, like maybe you are speaking to an O&G interest group or your family or a therapist, trying to explain your history. I'm not trying to be a dick. The world's understanding of these things was a lot different for most of your career, but we have learned a lot since then. There's a lot of shit we still do today that future generations may not look upon favorably. That's great that your family respected you and your colleagues; I just don't see what those past feelings have to do with climate change today and our path forward. 

I never suggested that you, PTINS, personally stood in the way of progress to fight climate change. What I'm saying is that the O&G industry as a whole spends millions of dollars on lobbyists to prevent change. That seems pretty indisputable but someone please correct me if that is somehow inaccurate.

We should plant more trees, but please tell me you don't seriously think that is the solution. Nothing to do with shifting away from fossil fuels, but simply plant more trees to restore the balance?

I am not saying anyone here said this, but I have had others dismiss my beliefs simply because "... you're just an oil and gas guy." 

Most of the time when somebody with an O&G background is appointed to a government position, there is a predictable refrain about the travesty of appointing an O&G person to make decisions about ... O&G. Funny, nobody makes those comments about hiring pilots to fly airplanes.

Every dollar spent by the industry on lobbyists is not to prevent change. Some of it is to challenge the 150 +/- groups or entities that exist to make sure nobody ever drills an oil & gas, anywhere, ever. Don't get me started on ethanol.

Tongue-in-cheek about the trees, but it would help. Very few people moved to the Gulf Coast until we got air conditioning, and liquor by the drink.  Plants and trees are easy; just add water.

I only offer this as an observation, without knowing the accuracy of the information presented. If there is a discernible seasonality difference in CO2 levels, one could presume there are benefits to influencing that seasonality.

image.png.2db44f56684237f07179864f8820ad79.png  

 

23 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

The rest of your post is good and I agree with it generally. This part I think deserves a separate response and represents a misunderstanding of the earth's carbon cycle. 

1). Carbon and CO2 is needed for life. That is correct. But...

2). The additional releases from carbon stored in hydrocarbons are not necessary to sustain existing life. 

The carbon in current plants (and potatoes) re-enters the environment as part of the lifecycle of the plants. There is no need for additional extraneous carbon for the carbon cycle to continue. 

The second part above is about releases of carbon from when the Earth's climate was warmer hundreds of millions of years ago. That carbon was essentially removed from the planetary carbon cycle and not only isn't required to sustain our current ecosystem, but is in fact detrimental to it, especially when released over a geologically short time span without giving the ecosystem time to to reach a new equilibrium.  

I understand, I over simplified.

Some of the byproducts of combustion are needed, there is just too much of it.

The Carbon gets the press, but the daily "consumption" of 80,000,000 barrels/day of oil (~5,000,000 BTU/bbl) and 400,000,000,000 Ft3/day of gas (~1,000 BTU/Ft3) includes putting all those residual BTU's, all that heat, into the atmosphere. 

Not unlike a hot oven in the kitchen.

19 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  That said....a combined approach of 1) reducing carbon emissions as much as possible, 2) preserving as much existing forest with large trees as possible, and 3) plant as much forest as possible - seriously, it's a planet-saving project, "expensive" should not be an obstacle.

We won't do any of that.  Because that's woke commie bullshit, anything that isn't just massive profit-taking and creating "shareholder value" is evil work of satan.

This.

"Capturing" CO2 and injecting it underground is very capital intensive. Subsidies and credits make it economical, I guess.

Treating water and planting vegetation seems like a no brainer, but ...

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, PTINS said:

I understand, I over simplified.

Some of the byproducts of combustion are needed, there is just too much of it.

The Carbon gets the press, but the daily "consumption" of 80,000,000 barrels/day of oil (~5,000,000 BTU/bbl) and 400,000,000,000 Ft3/day of gas (~1,000 BTU/Ft3) includes putting all those residual BTU's, all that heat, into the atmosphere. 

Not unlike a hot oven in the kitchen.

I don't believe combustion of hydrocarbons specifically is needed, but I understand your point. Combustion is a part of the normal carbon cycle of the planet. 

Your second point makes some intuitive sense, but I don't think is a meaningful driver of global warming.  The heat itself from burning hydrocarbons is a statistical rounding error compared to the overall change driven by increased greenhouse gases. More critically, I'm pretty sure heat from combustion on its own would be radiated into space rather than drive meaningful climate change. The extent to which it remains captured by the planet would, I believe, mostly depend on increasing greenhouse levels preventing its release to space. 

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...