Sign up | Login with →

Comments by J Elliott Subscribe

On Pentagon Sees Climate Change as Immediate Security Risk

 

What is the greatest threat to the U.S. and World security?  Putin’s ambitions to reestablish the USSR?  ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and other growing terrorist groups around the world?  Iran’s ambitions to develop nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles?  China’s ambitions to expand into other Pacific Countries’ territorial waters/islands?  Or, the Administration’s Defense Secretary who is often clueless to these and other potential and real risks to the security of U.S. Citizens?  If Climate Change presents the greatest risks to U.S. security, should not the Military begin preparing to stop the largest source of carbon emissions, China followed, by you-know-who?

In all seriousness, the Military’s purely political ideology motivated focus on Climate Change is a huge waste of U.S. resources and does not address the real and most threatening risks to U.S. security.  It’s time for the Military to stop paying $150 per gallon for wasteful/unsustainable biofuels and focus on the real threats that could impact U.S. Citizens far more than the worst Climate Change predictions.  What most Politicians forget is that our resources are finite and limited.  Rather than wasting our limited resources on Military programs that will accomplish nothing significant, we need to focus on expanding existing low carbon technologies and other improvement strategies in the Public Sectors.

 

October 20, 2014    View Comment    

On EPA Carbon Standard Compliance Strategies, Part 2: Industrial Proven Technology Solutions and Estimated Costs

 

The EPA has obviously predicted much lower future electric power consumption than the EIA.  This looks like the primary reason why the EPA estimates that future consumers will experienced cost savings vs. your increased estimated costs based on EIA data and projections.  What if the EPA’s prediction of lower power consumption were more accurate than the EIA prediction?  Based on your analysis of higher costs, would not future consumer power costs increase similar to a carbon tax, which would then discourage future consumer consumption?  This situation could than support the EPA’s prediction of lower future power consumption and costs.

September 15, 2014    View Comment    

On Exporting US Oil to Mexico

 

Trading North & Central America crude oil between the U.S. and Mexico has its merits as long as it can be done without creating loopholes that allow Upstream Companies to also begin exporting oil outside the region.  Another alternative would be to keep the LTO within the U.S. and encourage Downstream Companies to make the refining modifications necessary to more economically process LTO within the U.S.  These alternatives will still likely be debated by Upstream vs. Downstream Oil Companies and Special Interests.

 

September 15, 2014    View Comment    

On Despite Decline in Some Regions, World Oil Consumption Still Seen Rising

 

The growth in emerging countries’ oil consumption is not surprising.  Due to the higher costs of alternative energy sources, lower cost oil will continue to be very attractive to all 3rd world countries.  Despite the ongoing predictions of peaking oil, the combination of new tight oil technologies and access to new reserves both within emerging countries and the untapped reserves in the arctic region will continue to invalidate past, current and near future peaking oil claims.  The unfortunate consequence of OECD countries spending trillions of dollars on displacing their oil consumption today and in the future to help reduce their carbon foot prints is that non-OECD 3rd world countries future increased fossil fuels consumption will continue to grow the world’s total carbon foot print through at least the mid century.

 

September 15, 2014    View Comment    

On Energy Quote of the Day: '... Then we Just go Away as a Business'

 

In California the shutdown of Oyster Farms is also due to anthropogenic causes.  The impacts of (political) climate change continues to develop everywhere.

 

August 9, 2014    View Comment    

On New EPA Carbon Regulation: What will the Impacts be on Consumer Power Costs?

 

So the EPA has grossly under estimated the costs of reduced power carbon emissions and questionably estimated the benefits substantially based primarily on the health impacts of eliminating coal non-carbon emissions.  What else is new?  The greatest risk appears to be prematurely forcing the shutdown coal power capacity and not allowing sufficient time to build new lower carbon power generation capacity.  It sound like this is a hidden policy strategy of limiting available power generation, risking power outages and forcing reduced demand.  Couldn’t this strategy force reducing total power consumption or rationing power demand by claimed 8% in the future?   

 

July 14, 2014    View Comment    

On Oil Companies Gambling Billions of Dollars Ignoring Realities of a Carbon Constrained World

 

About 90% of total world energy required to support the world’s 7 trillion populous is supplied by fossil fuels today.  Oil currently makes up about one third of total world energy supply.  Most experts’ projections indicate that about 80% of total world energy will continue to be supplied by fossil fuels mid-century; to support a growing population up to about 9 trillion by 2050.  Since oil is projected to continue to supply about one third of total world fossil fuels in 2050, the risk of such an investment does not appear to be very significant.  If one assumes that most fossil fuels or oil will be eliminated by mid-century, what do you believe would be the impact on trillions of the total world population?  And, what are the odds of developing countries such as China and India of reducing, let alone substantially eliminating, the consumption of fossil fuels in the foreseeable future?

Investing against oil may have considerably greater risk.

 

July 14, 2014    View Comment    

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