Green Energy will destroy a Country. It’s a scam doomed to faliure. In fact it is on it’s way OUT! Who do these Globalist, New World Order people think they are? The Oil and Gas business is coming back fast! “KING OIL” is not dead!
3 Likes
You’re thinking with your pocketbook.
I’m one of those new-world-order types with solar panels on my roof, but we also just signed our first lease because O&G are still necessary and I like driving my gasoline powered car. It will not go away completely in my lifetime, maybe not in my daughter’s, but eventually it probably will cease to be the major form of energy.
How many people drive a horse and buggy to get around, or use a mule tied to shaft to grind grain? Be realistic and enjoy the money while you can. Better yet, save some money and invest in things you or your children will need in the inevitable sucky future of a planet that’s headed for climate disaster thanks to years of people ignoring the scientists.
Respectfully when the electrical grid shuts your Air Conditioner off and you can’t charge your Tesla. Your water well does not electricity to pump your water, the gas station near you does not have electricty to pump gasoline. Then?
I don’t have a Tesla, LOL, just said I drive a gasoline car (Jeep, to be exact, and not even the hybrid model). Also said someday fossil fuels will cease to be the major type of fuel, just like solar and wind are in the minority now. I’m excruciatingly aware of our grid, how gasoline is pumped, etc. I just think there is room for multiple types of fuels now and we should consider what is appropriate where and that it’s not some crazy idea to consider how fossil fuels have and are impacting our planet. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s science, just like we learned that DDT isn’t a good broad-spectrum pesticide choice, that asbestos is a bad idea inside our homes, and we can do better with our emissions from coal and oil. Gas is pretty awesome and I hope they produce some in my well.
But you do you, and I hope we both make a lot of money on our wells.
1 Like
China has a lot of coal powered plants and supposedly building more just like India. China manufactures Wind Turbines, Solar panels and lithium battery’s, plus a lot of other things. They laugh at the “Green New Deal” and people like John Kerry!
2 Likes
I agree that Oil is not dead yet, but it does have a limited time frame. All fossil fuels, oil, natural gas and coal will not be with us over the longer term, however. Ths is due in part to the amount of carbon dioxide that is introduced to our atmosphere by burning these fossil fuels to generate energy. I disagree with your assertion that green energy will destroy the country (as long as it is truly green).
Global warming is due to the increase of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. This is caused in part by fossil fuels including the 3 listed above. ( If you want to see the natural outcome of too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere you might want to take a look at Venus, which is uninhabitable to man. Its gaseous envelope is composed of more than 96 percent carbon dioxide and 3.5 percent molecular nitrogen. The 0.5% difference is made up of trace levels of several other gases). It is indeed a nasty place to set up shop.
However, since the world’s energy demands are being met at the present time by these fossil fuels, you can’t just decide to get rid of them overnight and expect it to happen. We have to do so responsibly over a longer period of time. Thus, there is a need for a transitional fuels that will ultimately be replaced by green energy. Since natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels, I beleive that will be the primary energy source that will be used to allow us to transition into the renewable energy era for our long-term future. At some point in time, even natural gas will not be used as an energy source.
The good news is that this is not going to happen over the course of the next 5-10 years. Depending upon who you ask, there are estimates of 25-60 years before the world is able to produce its total energy needs from renewable sources. Wind, Solar, water, biomass, geothermal and hyrdogen are just some of the potential renewable energy resources that can be used to wean us off the fossil fuels internationally. This time period could be sped up if nations around the world decided to dedicate a sizeable piece of their budget towards advancing these renewable approaches to energy generation.
IMO, the bottom line is for those of us that have an economic reason to want to stick with fossil fuels, we need to learn how to manage our energy assets appropriately and embrace the fact that thse assets will be losing their value over time. That may require you to even consider selling those assets in the future, even though you have been told by others to NEVER sell your mineral rights. At some point in time, your mineral rights will become worthless, unless there are other types of mineral deposits under the ground you own that can be expolited for economic value. And for some people that may be something they need to consider as well.
For those of us 65 or above, we may not see that much of a difference before our expiration date arrives in respect to global demand for our minerals. But I can guarantee that your kids and grandchildren will be a part of the transition to green energy whether they want to or not.
Just my 2 cents…
2 Likes
Jim and Piney make some reasonable points. In my opinion. But…
“Better yet, save some money and invest in things you or your children will need in the inevitable sucky future of a planet that’s headed for climate disaster thanks to years of people ignoring the scientists.”
ehhhhhhh… You do you, but I might replace “inevitable sucky future” with “future” and “climate disaster” with “climate challenges” and replace “ignoring the scientists” with “using what works and worrying about the costs later because right now there isn’t much other choice”. But that’s me, and I get the gist. It seems undeniable that man and man’s choices are having an effect of the planet. I think its also true that up to this point, the advantages of fossil fuel energy far far far outweigh the downsides of using said energy. That may well hold true in the future as well. So IMO you need to make smart choices that balance the costs of changing something that works with the disadvantages caused by continuing to use that something that works. And also think about the 3-4B poor folks who would desperately love to have access to reliable energy and don’t care about much else.
I don’t know, its mostly the hypocrisy that gets me. Pretty much everyone that yells climate fire in the movie house is smoking cigarettes like crazy. There is a lot of “I know oil is a problem and the greedy bad people are ruining the world but I need plastics and I like food grown with ammonia and I kind of like to fly on vacation and I really need an SUV and things would be a lot better if the poor people would just stay poor and not need much energy so I can keep living this lifestyle”. That’s basically the story. A bunch of greedy bad people calling other people greedy and bad. And enacting policy that is regressive as heck, both locally and worldwide. Everybody on both sides parroting the social media scare tactics narrative from their respective grifters. Saying to make unreasonable changes and shouting down any attempt to make reasonable changes. And nobody really changing anything. The minute you need to run the AC or it gets cold or the grid goes down or gas prices go up, everything gets real. And the same jokers screaming about ending oil are screaming that oil companies won’t go drill more wells.
For me, based on what we know now, anything that doesn’t involve a whole bunch of nuclear seems like a dumb plan. Basic physics, go with the highest energy density choice and the longest known fuel supply. As at a minimum you need some kind of reliable low-emission backup to the massive swings in the wind/solar experience. And batteries and pumped storage probably isn’t it. Seeing how it takes us 20 years and $20B to build a nuclear reactor here in clown world I wouldn’t expect any major changes. China is building like 30 reactors right now, because well, sometimes its a lot better to be an efficient police state than a dying empire. They also are building a zillion coal plants and a zillion solar cells and a zillion charging stations and a ton of BYD EVs. Building an economy and covering their bases. Like adults.
For me, whether it be green or purple or whatever, people are going to need energy. A lot of it. If you shut down electricity for a week in the US we’d be killing each other in the streets. Maybe we will all be running on He3 in 50 years, I don’t know.
We are pretty far away from Venus on the old CO2 scale. Like what a ratio of a billion? But yeah, the only way to transfer energy from the planet into space is via radiation and CO2 blocks certain wavelengths and thus…its a greenhouse. Chances are very good that the whole thing is real and manageable. But yeah maybe don’t buy a $30m house in the Exumas or something.
Sorry I was bored waiting for a ride.
Cheers
8 Likes
I do agree with your assessment that nuclear should be a part of the long term mix regarding energy sources. As far as emmissons are concerned, nuclear is deemed to be clean by the DOE.
However, we all know the downsides with nuclear such as 1) generating large amounts of radioactive wastes that we do not have a sttorage solution for.
-
The length of time to actually get a nuclear plant built is in the 10 years on average so they just too slow of an option. According to scenarios from the World Nuclear Association and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (both nuclear lobby organisations), doubling the capacity of nuclear power worldwide in 2050 would only decrease greenhouse gas emissions by around 4%. But in order to do that, the world would need to bring 37 new large nuclear reactors to the grid every year from now, year on year, until 2050.The last decade only showed a few to 10 new grid connections per year.(Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) | IAEA).
-
They are also very vulnerable in times of war, as we have seen in the Ukraine-Russia war. This could lead to a humaniterian disaster as we have already seen in Chernobyl.
However, I do beleive nuclear power could be helpful as a partial solution as to our long term energy needs by looking at Small Module Reactors to provide the power needs of small communities worldwide. NuScale Power Corporation is a publicly traded American company that designs and markets small modular reactors. It is headquartered in Portland, Oregon. A 50 MWe version of their design was certified by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission in January 2023…
You might want to take a look at what they are doing at this time. General Electric and others are also looking into this interesting approach to the problem as well.
I think that the conversion from fossil fuels to various forms of electricity will happen faster rather than slower. The limiting factor is not the capacity to produce electricity, but the grid to distribute it. Large and heavy iron-based batteries are impractical for cars, but they will be relatively cheap and have the capacity to store excess electricity near the end users, making the transmission capacity of the grid a manageable issue.
While demand for gasoline – and to some extend diesel – will fall precipitously in the next decade, the need for natural gas as a feedstock (not a fuel) for manufacturing will continue. Similarly, but to a bit lesser extent, the relative demand for petroleum as a manufacturing feedstock will begin to outstrip its demand as a fuel. The petroleum “crunch” will come when there is soft demand for the light distillates like gasoline and continuing demand for the heavier distillates like jet fuel and, particularly, asphalt. In other words, the need to “cut” a barrel of oil differently than it is now refined will usher in a historically upside down pricing for distillates.
The bottom line is that there will always be a demand for oil and gas. However, markedly decreased demand for it as a fuel will see its value and volume of production spiral downward over the next couple of decades. After all, why do you think the industry is so enthusiastic about horizontal wells? It’s because you largely tap them out very rapidly and get the benefit of high prices immediately instead of nursing them for decades as the price inevitably slumps.
I’ll be you think the earth is flat and that the moon landing was faked.
The State of New Mexico just sold some mineral rights for $95,000 per acre! I saw this on the Internet.
China, India and other Countries are opening new coal mines. The US is pushing the “Green New Deal” and these countries are Laughing. They are not paying John Kerry one little be of attention.
2 Likes
If you saw it on the internet then it has to be true.
1 Like
Dr. Tinker points out that the world energy problem is too large to be solved without the use of every known energy production method. To argue oil and gas should be ignored is folly or intellectually dishonest. [Scott Tinker: The Dual Challenge: Energy and Environment | TED Talk]
Middle class communities pollute far less than poor ones. Micheal Schellenberger has explained why the various sources of energy production are necessary to raise the economic status of people around the world. Access to clean water and reliable energy allows poor communities to raise their standard of living.
The challenge is not saving the planet… it is not going anywhere. The real challenge is providing enough energy to meet the needs of the entire population. Solve that and people everywhere will pollute less.
2 Likes
In my opinion, the USA’s rush to green energy is foolish. China almost has a monopoly on the manufacture of solar panels and EV batteries and they are trying to gain control of the world’s rare-earth minerals. Their cyber-warriors could launch an attack on the U.S. power grid and completely shut the United States down.
1 Like
I agree with you and there are a lot of more things that are a lot worse.
I am glad to see this (mostly) civil discussion. I manage and will soon inherit modestly-sized productive mineral rights.
I have grave concerns about the climate future and the role of hydrocarbons in climate change. 10-15 years ago, natural gas was marketed as a transition fuel but the methane venting/flaring/leaks make it as bad as coal. I’m sure technology could solve many of those problems, but there is no economic or regulatory incentive. (In Texas, drillers self-report leaks. Citizens who discover and document unreported releases are ignored.) Perhaps the newly available satellite surveillance will help pinpoint the bad actors.
Abandoned wells are also a catastrophe. No one knows how many there are (estimates I’ve seen are 1-2 million), and each costs ~$30K-$150K to plug. Why do taxpayers have to shoulder this cost? Why isn’t this the responsibility of the oil and gas companies?
I spent decades in Texas but did not have to live with the day-to-day consequences of extraction. I did some long bike rides through some old oil and gas fields. The air is noxious. I recently listened to the Boomtown podcast (which I found out about in this forum). I learned the Permian extraction boom has spread to Alpine/Marfa/Ft Davis, and it just about broke my heart.
I know mineral rights owners who have sold their interests because they cannot tolerate being implicated directly in climate change so directly. I don’t think that is the answer. Selling just concentrates mineral ownership in the hands of entities motivated by pure profit–regardless of implications for the climate, environment, and community. I am interested in being a better steward, in holding the extractors to account. I’d welcome a referral if anyone here knows of any organization/group that assists similarly inclined mineral owners.
As the Dude would say, that’s just like your opinion, man. Which surely you are entitled to.
I would apply the Gell-Mann Amnesia principal to anything you read in the papers about anything. First and foremost.
P&Aing wells is the responsibility of the oil company. And has been for a long while. But yes, you can just go bankrupt and walk I suppose. Everywhere i have worked you had to lump in the 50k for abandonment costs into any well plan and you were plugging wells every year. There are some old old wells, just like old old mines, or old dumpsites…that the public has decided need reclamation efforts, and thus the bill falls on the public.
The whole industry has gotten much much cleaner (in the US) in the last 30 years. These days you have VRUs to capture vent gas and IR drones flying over your batteries to detect leaks/plumes. Any spill requires an incident report. Texas definitely lags other states on flaring.
The issue isn’t the “extractors”…its the demand. It’s all of us. Right? Pretty sure there is no nicotine or opioid in gasoline. Hold yourself responsible first, IMO. Use the absolute minimum of fossil fuels that you can. Absolute minimum. Grow your own food. No fertilizers. Only use water that is hand pumped. All new clothes are a fossil fuel sink, recycle old clothes. Stick to the bike. Windmill for any electricity. Use a computer at the library. Certainly no AC in the house. Kaczynski it up. Hard road but absolutely necessary.
That…or keep living exactly the same as you always have been, blame somebody else and then sit around hoping those pesky Africans/Indians don’t start using more fossil fuels. That’s the American way.
Gas is as bad as coal? LOL
My eyes glazed over after that one.
2 Likes