Shell’s defence of big oil is too hopeful

83 Comments on "Shell’s defence of big oil is too hopeful"

Davy on Wed, 13th Sep 2017 9:46 am 



LOL, clog, did I get under your clammy white skin? Man up and quit your whining. Be real about the dangers ahead and accept personal and national responsibility for your failures. You and your stupid Dutch people are not superhuman like you proclaim them to be, no you are too modest and the thought to outrageous to say it overtly but by the inference is there. People who talk themselves up like you and makat make me sick.

rockman on Wed, 13th Sep 2017 11:28 am 



Cloggie – “55-mile barrier, 17 feet high to protect Houston and Gulf area.” I gather you didn’t watch the details of the damage inflicted upon Houston by Harvey. We could have had a 100′ tall dike along the entire Texas coast and it would not have changed the damage. No GOM water flooded Houston…not one gallon. It was all caused by the 50″ of rain that hit the area.

In the future as far as protecting Houston from a storm surge it’s good to understand that not just Houston but none of the entire county Houston sits in is along the coast. In fact the worst flooded areas of Houston are more then 100 miles from the coastline.

BTW Galveston, which actually sits right on the shoreline, suffered no meaningfull damage from a Harvey storm surge. Even Rockport that was almost almost completely destroyed also sits on the shoreline about 120 SE of Galveston, Virtually all the damage done by Harvey where it made landfall was done by high winds.

Details do make a difference when offering criticism or advice. LOL.

Jan on Wed, 13th Sep 2017 11:36 am 



Global oil consumption in 1985 was 60 million barrels per day. in 1995 it was around 70, in 2005 we consumed around 80 million. Now we are consuming 96 Million barrels per day.
Of the 100 million vehicles produced around 0.2million were fully electric.
It is not hard to see oil consumption continuing for a long time yet.

Kenz300 on Wed, 13th Sep 2017 11:43 am 



China and other countries are looking to phase out the sales of ICE vehicles and increase the percent of all electric vehicles sold every year. Game Changer. China is the worlds largest auto market.

Cloggie on Wed, 13th Sep 2017 11:45 am 



@Rockman – if I may quote myself in this thread:

You get a lot of dike and draining system for that money.

I am very well aware that Houston was “rainbombed”, not flooded from the sea.

Nevertheless, I do remember the word “levies”, connected to that other disaster in New Orleans, more than a decade ago. And that had very well to do with insufficient protection from the sea, not “rain bombs”.

Furthermore, if Irma had taken the East coast route, Miami had very well been flooded from the sea.

From a few billions invested in protection, either dikes or drainage (Houston), you get a lot of return in avoided damages.

The offer still stands.lol

fmr-paultard on Wed, 13th Sep 2017 11:47 am 



eutard nazi why u still trying to recruit my supertards as Cambridge Five? be honest and build up your kindship expertise and impose self sanction like NK if you’re supermen.

my supertards are honest. leave them alone

Cloggie on Wed, 13th Sep 2017 11:50 am 



You and your stupid Dutch people are not superhuman like you proclaim them to be

You are full of shit Davy. I never said that. Show me the quote. Stinking liar.

onlooker on Wed, 13th Sep 2017 2:43 pm 



Kenz, with the politicians you have to watch what they do NOT what they say. Why is China trying to impose so hard its claim of the South China Sea with its oil if they are about phasing out FF?

Anonymouse1 on Wed, 13th Sep 2017 2:47 pm 



What are you even doing here cloggen-stain? THere are plenty of sites where you can debate the origins and causes of WW2 ad-nauseum with like-minded individuals. The only one bringing that topic up, over and over again, is you.

Its a peak oil site cloggen-fraud, in case you hadn’t noticed, or figured that out yet.
All you do, is post OT bullshit and derail comments non-stop.

And no, just because you intersperse your waaay off-topic rants about ‘commies’ and WW2 with your odd, disjointed proselytizing of the virtues of wind turbines, doesn’t really make up for it either.

I don’t see any Ww2 sub-forums in the main site, do you, idiot? But there are plenty of WW2 forums elsewhere, hint hint…

Go away cloggen-fraud. Your ranting is as bad as the exceptionalists windy bloviating, boring diatribes, not that anyone reads those either.

Cloggie on Wed, 13th Sep 2017 3:49 pm 



When do you ever address peak-oil yourself, diesel-trucker punk? All you ever whine about is how stupid and fat white Americans are.

The peak-oil (supply) topic is obsolete, it is irrelevant, a vague memory to the Heinberg years that are no more. The folks of the oil-drum understood that years ago and closed shop. This site-with-the-wrong-name covers meanwhile a much wider topic range: geopolitics, water, food, climate, dollar, economy, peak-oil demand, LNG, Kunstler (who never talks again about peak-oil demand), you name it.

And my history “rants” are invariably prompted if some here provoke these rants by making false statements about history, often intentional, like the TalmudTurd and Davy.

Why don’t you just get lost yourself and join your local BLM chapter and put a sack over the local statue of Jefferson. Nobody will miss you.

Boat on Wed, 13th Sep 2017 4:37 pm 



clog,

Actually peak oil hasn’t happened yet so debate is still alive. Peak oil by demand is price driven in part by geopolitics, for example Nigeria, Libya currently has oil fields offline, online, offline etc. For example Iraq can develop oil rather cheap but spends more on security.
One could easily argue if the world had been at peace for the last 30 years fracking and tar sands would have never happened.
Obviously peace did not happen but to supply demand, oil stuck in rock which costs more grew along with oils mined. Some call that depletion driven, others growing demand driven, yet others say geopolitical events simply drove producers with reservoirs to wait for conflict/sanctions to subside.

Antius on Wed, 13th Sep 2017 4:51 pm 



Cloggie, supply and demand always match. The only variable is cost.

As time proceeds, large conventional fields deplete and to keep production flat, smaller conventional and unconventional deposits must replace them. These fields require a higher price in order to turn a profit.

Unfortunately, the world is broke and cannot sustain higher prices. This is how oil production peaks.

Cloggie on Wed, 13th Sep 2017 5:06 pm 



Cloggie, supply and demand always match. The only variable is cost.

Moah, if you ignore storage, yes.

Unfortunately, the world is broke and cannot sustain higher prices.

The world does otherwise a perfect job in hiding that it is broke. In continental Europe things look better than ever before. Economists expect full employment soon in Germany (strongly related to lots of people retiring)…

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/arbeitsmarkt-forscher-halten-vollbeschaeftigung-2025-fuer-moeglich-a-1167030.html

…government budget is everywhere under control.

High-profile people predict that much of the world and most of all Europe are well placed for a period of sustained expansion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM9_PrBoq9Q

I know this is not the proper forum to ventilate these thoughts, but I am suffering from a serious case of “collapse fatigue”.

Britain is pressing full steam ahead with offshore wind:

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/09/13/dong-to-build-worlds-largest-offshore-wind-park-hornsea-uk/

I’m sorry, but count me out on the collapse front. As long as Trump remains in power and no major geopolitical accidents happen (NK, Iran, Baltics) I am opting for a “golden decade”.

Davy on Wed, 13th Sep 2017 6:44 pm 



Let me edit that slightly:
“I am opting for a “fools golden decade”.”

We don’t know what is coming and those like you who say such things in the extreme are fools. That goes for doomers in the extreme. It goes for anyone claiming to know. You want it to happen so it is so. How emotionally human is that!

Anonymouse1 on Wed, 13th Sep 2017 7:08 pm 



So you think peak oil is ‘obsolete? That is your rationalization? Pretty weak cloggen-stein. That is what is known as an ‘assertion’, an unfounded one at that. An opinion Even your retard acolyte, boatietard disagrees with you, and he hasn’t the slightest clue as to what is being discussed. How is that for irony?

Regardless of whether you believe PO is ‘obsolete’, or not, it hardly gives you carte blanche to derail comments and threads non-stop in the manner you do.

As I pointed out cloggen-kike, there are plenty of places you endlessly rehash the minutiae of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, or any of your other OT non-energy, resource hobby horses

Now go away. Really.

Apneaman on Wed, 13th Sep 2017 7:35 pm 



Fires, heat waves, and hurricanes: why this summer’s extreme weather is here to stay – This summer, the US has had several record-smashing natural disasters

“Research shows that strong hurricanes, like Harvey and Irma, will become more frequent as the planet warms,”

https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/12/16295000/extreme-weather-climate-change-wildfires-heat-waves-hurricanes

Shell knew’: oil giant’s 1991 film warned of climate change danger

Public information film unseen for years shows Shell had clear grasp of global warming 26 years ago but has not acted accordingly since, say critics

Film warned of climate change ‘at rate faster than at any time since end of the ice age’

“Shell’s 28-minute film, called Climate of Concern, was made for public viewing, particularly in schools and universities. It warned of extreme weather, floods, famines and climate refugees as fossil fuel burning warmed the world. The serious warning was “endorsed by a uniquely broad consensus of scientists in their report to the United Nations at the end of 1990”, the film noted.

“If the weather machine were to be wound up to such new levels of energy, no country would remain unaffected,” it says. “Global warming is not yet certain, but many think that to wait for final proof would be irresponsible. Action now is seen as the only safe insurance.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/28/shell-knew-oil-giants-1991-film-warned-climate-change-danger

Boat on Wed, 13th Sep 2017 8:00 pm 



So much for oil demanding weakening.

Demand growth is strengthening: robust demand in OECD countries was a key factor in 2Q17’s global growth of 2.3 mb/d, the highest quarterly year-on-year increase since mid-2015. Consequently, our estimated demand growth for 2017 has been increased to 1.6 mb/d.

What happened to the 1.2 mbpd estimates for 2017. Apparently the Jew state conspired to fool traders. Hmmmmmm…I thought global elitists liked to overstate rather than understate.

http://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/september/omr-ready-for-a-rainy-day.html

Apneaman on Wed, 13th Sep 2017 11:43 pm 



<b?Florida Sen. Bill Nelson: Republicans ‘denying reality’ on climate change

Democratic Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, after surveying the damage that Hurricane Irma inflicted across his state, blasted Republican politicians who reject the science and minimize the importance of climate change—including his likely opponent in 2018, Governor Rick Scott.

In an interview Tuesday evening with POLITICO, Nelson said it’s clear that manmade global warming made Irma worse by increasing the temperature and the height of the seas that fueled the storm. He said he didn’t want to play partisan politics in the aftermath of a hurricane, but then went on to criticize Republicans in general and Scott in particular—though not by name—for opposing climate action. He noted that both the Trump administration in Washington and the Scott administration in Tallahassee have reportedly discouraged government employees from even talking about climate change.

“It’s denying reality,” Nelson said. “You can call it politics or whatever, but the Earth is getting hotter. This storm is another reminder of what we’re going to have to deal with in the future.”

Nelson, a former astronaut, launched into a detailed explanation of the science of climate change and the greenhouse effect, and how it has helped make the waters around Florida higher and warmer in recent decades. He said it would be a crucial issue in his reelection campaign, even as he avoided the words “Rick Scott.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/12/climate-change-bill-nelson-republicans-242638

Deniers are nihilist scum that put their precious ideology before the lives of their own families. The ONLY reason they are deniers is 100% political.

Apneaman on Wed, 13th Sep 2017 11:45 pm 



Exxon Loses Bid to Keep Auditor Files Secret in Climate Fraud Investigation

New York’s highest court rejected Exxon’s appeal. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is probing whether the oil giant misled investors on climate change risks.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12092017/exxon-loses-pwc-auditor-ruling-climate-fraud-investigation-new-york-schneiderman-court

Jan on Thu, 14th Sep 2017 3:18 am 



Kenz300

China this year increased consumption by 700,000 per day, for some perspective the United Kingdom uses 1.5 million barrels per day.
In 3 years China added the consumption of the fifth largest economy in the world.
Question for you. How many electric vehicles will China have to sell each year before it’s oil consumption starts to fall?

rockman on Thu, 14th Sep 2017 9:03 am 



Cloggie – “From a few billions invested in protection, either dikes or drainage (Houston), you get a lot of return in avoided damages.” As my response made clear I was responding to your VERY SPECIFIC opinion that $billions should be spent on dikes to prevent a repeat of the disaster in Houston. And now your latest response is more confusing since you claim to understand that Houston’s distal local to the coast. Which clearly means Houston would get no benefit from a coastal dike system.

As far as New Orleans is concerned I can add to your knowledge base since I grew up there. Like Houston the city of NOLA is also not on the coast so it would also receive no benefit from a dike along the Louisiana shoreline. The levees that failed were built to protect the city from flood stages on the Mississippi River. It was the failure of those “dikes” that were PARTIALLY responsible for the flooding. But heavy rainfall in an area that was at and below sea level was a significant factor. And $BILLIONS had been spent of the decades on the “dikes” and water diversion systems along the river through the city as well as upstream. But the city has for decades ignored levee maintenance. For instance the city spent hundreds of $MILLIONS of federal “levee funds” building a huge convention center along the river. The justification was that since the center was built over a section of the levee. Note: the levees did not fail either upstream or downstream of New Orleans. Also consider the recent flood bin the city that were not related to a hurricane or levee failure. It was an insufficient amount of pumping capabiliies to get the waters over the levee system into the river and lake. But bottom line: a coastal dike system would have changed nothing with Katrina.

As far as Miami and the other coastal cities go the storm surge has done some damage. But clearly the vast majority of the damage in the state was done by high winds far away from shoreline. IOW in areas where a coastal dike system would have made no difference. What has made s huge difference in damage in Miami and other coastal cities wrecked by Hurricane Andrew was upgrading the building codes.

I appreciate your fixation with dikes given where you live. But if you were to review the long history of hurrricane damage in the US you would learn that building a 5,000+ long system of coastal dikes would have been a foolish waste of money and would have reduced damages insignificantly.

IOW this is the USA…not a pissy little European country with an insignificant coastline along the North Sea. LOL.

Sissyfuss on Thu, 14th Sep 2017 9:47 am 



Wow Rocko. I didn’t know Cloghornea was fixated on dykes. Now I’m wondering if he’s tranny or merely a cross dresser. Cloggedhymen, does what happens in the Netherlands stay in the Netherlands?

Cloggie on Thu, 14th Sep 2017 1:12 pm 



Cloggie – “From a few billions invested in protection, either dikes or drainage (Houston), you get a lot of return in avoided damages.” As my response made clear I was responding to your VERY SPECIFIC opinion that $billions should be spent on dikes to prevent a repeat of the disaster in Houston. And now your latest response is more confusing since you claim to understand that Houston’s distal local to the coast. Which clearly means Houston would get no benefit from a coastal dike system.

Perhaps if you carefully read your quote of my quote, you will verify that in the case of Houston I advise a drainage system for Houston. And also in this case we can be of great help.

I appreciate your fixation with dikes given where you live. But if you were to review the long history of hurrricane damage in the US you would learn that building a 5,000+ long system of coastal dikes would have been a foolish waste of money and would have reduced damages insignificantly.

Dikes are admittedly useless against rain bombs, but the coasts of Florida are virtually unprotected, that would have made itself felt if Irma had taken the East coast trajectory. You were lucky, this time.

IOW this is the USA…not a pissy little European country with an insignificant coastline along the North Sea. LOL.

It is absolutely true that Holland is not very big. Take for instance agrarian export, in which the US managed to stay ahead of us. Not much, but still. And without the Netherlands you would not have achieved independence from Britain:

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/the-second-american-revolution/

In fact because of our help to you, we lost great power status in Europe, after the British finally managed to destroy us in the 4th Anglo-Dutch sea war in an act of revenge for our help (which admittedly was intended to give Britain a haircut, not because we couldn’t wait to get our first Hamburger served).

But more important is that “this pissy little country” still has its water household in order. Which can’t be said of every shitty big country.

Again, remember we are here to help you.

https://nltimes.nl/2017/08/30/new-orleans-turns-netherlands-help-dealing-floods

We always have a soft spot in our hearts for our colony of three centuries.

Cloggie on Thu, 14th Sep 2017 1:36 pm 



I’m not a big fan of the commies of Salon; in the nineties I had 2400 baud modem, a Compuserve account and a Salon subscription, when I was still a leftist-liberal Oprah-watching Yuppie and I still believed in things concerning America, Davy still believes today. Until in the early 2000s I had made enough money to buy me some time and begin reading history in a serious manner, but I digress.

These Salon folks at least are smart enough to find serious help for their water problems:

http://www.salon.com/2017/09/13/the-u-s-should-go-dutch-to-avoid-building-another-houston_partner/

When the Dutch, the experts in flood prevention, look at us, they try to be polite, but really there’s no way around the truth.

LOL

Some fine Dutch diplomacy coming up:

“The United States is a little bit lagging behind in flood protection, to be honest,” says Jeroen Aerts, professor of water and climate risk at Vrije University in Amsterdam.

This is what I try to tell Rockman all the time. Perhaps he will take it from Salon:

To avoid future Harvey-scale events, the U.S. could do well to take a page from Holland and get ahead of flooding, rather than scrambling to recover from it.

Salon is proposing New York as an example of how water should be managed:

One example of a well-stacked American city is New York, New York — aka the island of Manhattan. It’s compact, with more than 1.5 million people in fewer than 34 square miles of land, so flood-prevention efforts are feasible.

I could of course bring up that NYC began its illustrious life as a Dutch city, but I am sure that is coincidence.

“Of course we from the Netherlands are happy to help,” van de Ven says, when it comes to fortifying American cities for the future. “But it is up to you.”

Now where would you be without your Dutch friends, I am asking you?

GregT on Thu, 14th Sep 2017 1:47 pm 



“Now where would you be without your Dutch friends, I am asking you?”

Maybe it would be more intelligent to NOT build up areas below sea level? No need to build out costly infrastructure that will eventually succumb to Mother Nature anyways. Not exactly rocket science, but certainly gives the engineers something to do.

Cloggie on Thu, 14th Sep 2017 1:57 pm 



Sooner or later everything succumbs to Mother Nature. As long as you have a good time in between, that doesn’t really matter. And having to battle an opponent, like water, makes you battle-hardened, which puts you in a position to sell your skills to others, less experienced:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NxvwU83nZM

It is difficult to overstate the strategic advantage of living at the sea side and you have easy access to the Seven Seas, not to mention the sudden giant value of the North Sea as a new energy province with the potential make us electricity=from-wind exporters in the coming decades.

GregT on Thu, 14th Sep 2017 2:45 pm 



Netherlands and UK – Sea Level Rise Map

http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/netherlands.shtml

It might make more sense to build out areas that won’t be submerged ‘in the coming decades’. Rather than to leave unmitigated disasters for others to deal with.

GregT on Thu, 14th Sep 2017 2:48 pm 



“As long as you have a good time in between, that doesn’t really matter.”

To you. It IS going to matter to those who follow behind you however, just like continuing to destroy the natural environment IS going to matter, immensely.

Cloggie on Thu, 14th Sep 2017 3:06 pm 



The UN predicts 50 cm sea level rise by 2100. That is manageable, for us.

rockman on Thu, 14th Sep 2017 3:16 pm 



Cloggie – “Cloggie, supply and demand always match. The only variable is cost…if you ignore storage, yes.” Why exclude storage? It also represents demand. The vast majority of oil that has gone into storage in recent years has been BOUGHT by speculators. Oil bought by anyone for any reason is part of the demand side of the equation. It seems like you may have fallen into the trap of thinking that storage increases is a result of producers unable to find a buyer. I’ve yet to hear of any producer unable to sell oil they wanted to sell. And as I’ve explained before if a producer were unable to find a buyer for all the oil they wanted to sell why would they pay someone to store that oil? They would simply reduce production. Not only would that save them the cost of storage it would reduce operations cost and slow their decline rate.

In reality very few operators would reduce production voluntarily: cash flow is still King. Which is exactly why companies are producing AND SELLING near record volumes of oil. With some of that oil being BOUGHT and sent to storage. So again to be very clear: very little of the oil that has been added to the storage volume is oil that producers COULD NOT find a buyer for. In fact part of the reason that prices have been staying relatively low is the record amount of PRODUCTION BEING SOLD. If producers had been holding on to their oil and sending it to storage that would have put some upward pressure on prices.

As been said many times before: the dynamic at play is not that difficult to follow if one understands who the oil sellers and buyers are as well as who is sending oil to storage and their motivation.

rockman on Thu, 14th Sep 2017 4:45 pm 



Cloggie – “To avoid future Harvey-scale events, the U.S. could do well to take a page from Holland and get ahead of flooding, rather than scrambling to recover from it.”

So are you arguing that if Amsterdam, with an area of 85 sq miles (Houston: 630 sq miles) were hit with 50″ of rain in less then 48 hours there wouldn’t be substantial flooding? IOW surrounded by all those nice dikes to keep the North Sea out what is it’s capability to pump 10 TRILLION GALLONS of rain water back over those barriers?

BTW In Southeast Houston, a weather station has registered more than 51 inches of rain from Tropical Storm Harvey. The measurement is preliminary, but if confirmed, it will mean Harvey has broken the record for the greatest amount of rain recorded from a single tropical storm or hurricane in the continental United States. It’s more than 4 feet of rain. By comparison the wettest MONTH (November) in Amsterdam accumulatea a whopping 3.5″ OVER 31 DAYS.

I’m sure everyone here would like to see you explain it in detail? IOW what would all that world class flooding protection do for Amsterdam if the city got 15X as much rain a few days as it gets for its entire wettest month?

And speaking of comparisons: Netherlands coastline: 280 miles and 37 miles is protected by structures such as dikes and dams. Florida coastline: 1,350 miles.

So the Dutch have had an easier (and much less expensive) effort to defend against storm surges since it ain’t got sh*t to protect compared to the US: Texas + Louisiana + Mississippi + Alabama + Georgia + S Carolina + N Carolina = 3,000 miles. Again compared to the Netherlands’ 280 miles of which less the 40 miles is protected from a storm surge. Pretty easy to be critical of how another country has dealt with a potential problem when your country has not had anything close to the same magnitude to deal with.

It’s rather similar to someone in the US criticizing someone in Holland for its inability to stop a foreign army from invading. Just doesn’t seem kosher. LOL.

Just some friendly advice Cloggie: you might not want to talk sh*t to anyone that has a world of stats available to them on the Internet. LOL.

rockman on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 8:18 am 



Cloggie – “Perhaps if you carefully read your quote of my quote, you will verify that in the case of Houston I advise a drainage system for Houston. And also in this case we can be of great help.” Perhaps you should access that Internet thingy and learn that Houston has a world class flood control system. LOL. So the Dutch could teach us something about drainage? So you are saying Amsterdam could handle 50″ of rain in a few days? In a country where a large % of your population lives below sea level? Wow, that’s amazing! Please describe in detail how Amsterdam would not get flooded by such a torent of rain. We could certainly appreciate the advice.

Again a reminder about tossing rocks around your glass house. LOL

Antius on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 8:42 am 



Sometimes nature throws curveballs that no one can satisfactorily engineer against. The 50″ of rain in 72 hours is a good example. There is nothing that can realistically be done that will prevent that from flooding any sizable piece of land and causing damage.

Then you have to ask how much money you are willing to spend against the risk. That comes down to cost-benefit analysis. To deal with a flooding problem that severe, would require mega-engineering – equivalent to digging a new Panama canal. Is it worth that sort of investment to avoid the risk? Who would want to be stuck with the cost of maintaining it and working around it every day for something that might happen on a return frequency of once every century or more? This is the sort of thinking that drives disaster planning in the real world.