Sign up | Login with →

Comments by J Elliott Subscribe

On Energy Quote of the Day: Exxon's Climate Response 'Consummate Arrogance'


Exxon’s apparent response to climate change questions/recent publications is somewhat surprising since most major oil companies have PR divisions that would normally talk around or in support of corrective actions.  Since Exxon is in the oil and natural gas business you would think they would discuss their programs to switch towards lower carbon, more efficient and cleaner fossil fuels.  Sounds like they messed-up this time.  Good luck persuading investors to divest from XOM stock.  Their financial performance and returns are still too good compared to green energy alternatives.

April 5, 2014    View Comment    

On Mounting Evidence of Health Concerns Near Tar Sands Development


Man has used crude oil for over 100 years.  You seem to believe that all forms of oil cause cancer at all stages of production, transportation, refining and consumption.  What are the carcinogens that the heavy tar sands oil are supposed to contain?  Have similar studies in the U.S. found cancer to be an upstream and downstream health issue?  California has historically been the largest producer of heavy SJV crude oil within the U.S.  Since California is the most environmentally conscious State in the U.S. you would think they would have addressed this heavy oil cancer risk issue.  Has California experienced similar health issues?  How about in the La Brea Tar Pit neighborhood or along the south coast beaches where tar sands type oil has seeped from the ground since before man occupied North America and today?



April 5, 2014    View Comment    

On What are the Realistic Costs and Benefits of the New EPA Tier 3 (Reduced) Gasoline Sulfur Regulation?


Why do you discount the ability of the EPA’s peer review consultants to accurately determine the cost to reduce gasoline sulfur?  May be they identified opportunities to reduce gasoline sulfur that the API, AFPM and you missed.  After all, everyone has an opinion on most subjects and even the so called experts make mistakes sometimes.


March 13, 2014    View Comment    

On Why the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline Matters for Climate Change


Is continuing to delay a final decision on the Keystone XL in the best interests of North America and the world?  If you believe that such an action will somehow prevent increasing the level of Canadian oil sands and world total crude oil production, possibly.  If you believe the total oil will still flow, the consequences could be far greater than the small amount of increased carbon claimed by Keystone XL opponents.  The Keystone will not likely reduce crude oil consumption in the U.S.  Instead, the U.S. could increase its reliance on imports from our stable friends in the Middle East and OPEC.  If Russia rebuilds the USSR as Putin may be pursuing, these alternative sources of world crude oil supply could be at risk.  Did you miss what recently happened to world crude oil prices when Russia began the campaign of occupying the Crimea.? 


March 13, 2014    View Comment    

On Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas Is A Dreadful Idea For The Climate


The export of U.S. LNG to sanction Russia cannot feasibly make any difference for at least several years.  If Russia decides to cut off natural gas exports to the Ukraine and the EU, who suffers most?  Not the U.S. currently.  If we shutdown all fracking natural gas production within the U.S. in support of all those questionable claims that such an action is absolutely critical to protect the world from global warming or climate change, who is most affected?  Most of the U.S. population, primarily the poor, the middle class and the elderly, since the rich progressives and conservatives have lots of money and will always find a way to maintain their elite lifestyles regardless of national problems that affect most everyone else.


March 13, 2014    View Comment    

On Secretary Kerry Makes Climate Change Top Priority in New Policy Directive: Some Key Actions to Deliver on That Policy


Where was Senator Kerry in 2009 when the House passed ACESA 2009 and the Senate did not even bring the bill to the floor to debate this potentially first U.S. carbon cap-n-trade bill?  Is the reason why Secretary Kerry is not likely slowing Iran’s nuclear program because he believes they are truly pursuing nuclear power generation to reduce their carbon emissions?  Where was Senator Kerry 2010-2012 in demanding Senate Leader, Harry Reid, to bring a U.S. climate bill to the Senate floor for consideration?  Where has Secretary Kerry been in pursuing Harry Reid in making a climate change bill a priority this year?  As will likely occur, the Senate’s recent all-nighter campaign/PR climate focused gesture will not likely change the Democratically controlled Senate’s position on real climate regulations before this year’s elections.


March 13, 2014    View Comment    

On Modern Alchemy: The Conversion of Anergy to Exergy


Why does the world waste most of the energy consumed today?  Technology and cost.  What is the cost to produce one kilowatt of power from the OTEC engine including amortized capital you reference?


March 5, 2014    View Comment    

On Secretary Kerry is Right that Climate Change Needs to be Tackled like a 'Weapon of Mass Destruction'


Is Secretary Kerry right that climate change needs to be tackled like a ‘Weapon of Mass Destruction’?  The real question becomes what is the probability and capability of Secretary Kerry in successfully dealing with this claimed weapon of mass destruction?   97% or 3%?; that the Secretary and current Administration will be any more successful than their current progress and ability to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons development, or yielding to Russia in leading and eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons used to kill their own citizens.  News update: Syria has delayed handing over their chemical weapons so they can be destroyed as promised.  So what has changed since Senator Kerry voted against the Kyoto Protocol in 1997?  The real weapon of mass destruction here is lack of intelligent, civil and constructive discussion on how best to persuade the majority of the World’s populations to stop consuming fossil fuels.


February 18, 2014    View Comment    

On A Forecast of Our Energy Future; Why Common Solutions Don’t Work

Yes, the cost of developing unconventional oil production has increased in recent years relative to conventional oil production costs.  This is due to the combination of depleting conventional oil reserves, higher costs of secondary/tertiary recovery technologies (heat/steam, chemical/hydraulic fracturing and displacing oil deposites with water/carbon dioxide) and restricted access to known conventional oil reserves.  In the U.S. the two historic examples of restricted conventional oil reserves access are shutdown of all off-shore developments on the East and West Coasts and Alaska’s ANWR.  Similar constraints can be witnessed in Europe and other parts of the World where governments control all oil reserves/development.  Mexico’s loosening of their oil reserves recently effectively removes some of these historic government constraints.

January 31, 2014    View Comment    

On When Will the Obama Administration Possibly Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline?


You did not answer Mr. Tracy’s question below: are you affiliated with the Koch brothers and Exxon-Mobil?  From your background you are obviously an oil guy.


January 31, 2014    View Comment    

On Stae of the Union: The Climate Impact Line


“How do we break the wedge?”  “What it means is:” boycotting the use of all fossil fuels.  How do we get everyone, including the liberal elite, to stop using vehicles (including their private aircraft) that burn petroleum fuels, stop using electricity that is generated from coal & natural gas, turn down the thermostats and wear more sweaters and coats indoors during the winter, raise your own food and stop buying and eating wasteful & unhealthy processed foods, stop taking (golf?) vacations by flying to distant locations, and on, and on.  Maybe everyone, including the rich progressives and those wall street money grabbers, should adopt the living standards of developing countries.  After all, people in developing countries use far less fossil fuels and rely more on renewable energy sources than all developed countries’ populations.


January 31, 2014    View Comment    

On President Obama State of the Union Address: International Climate Implications


President Obama may believe “climate change is a fact”, but his own Democratic Party apparently doesn’t.  Remember back in 2009 when the House of Representatives controlled by the Democrats passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act that the Senate controlled by the Democrats did not pass?  Too bad the Democrats lost control of the House the following year.  Why hasn’t the Democratically controlled Senate ever addressed this issue during his presidency?  Could it be the past and upcoming elections where the majority of voters may not be on the same page as the President or many of his supporting base?  Or is it due to the question that the currently proposed climate change solutions may not be the ‘irrefutably’ absolute solutions to preventing global warming as some believe?


January 31, 2014    View Comment